jaclaz

Yep , but that is diskpart on disk 4. You are seemingly using ddrescue on disk 5 The difference between 4 and 5 is ALMOST as important as the one between 5 and 6 unless diskpart and ddrescue use a different numbering scheme which - from memory - I doubt, but in any case you should always test two different items with the SAME tool, to see differences, or the SAME item with two different tools, as is, it seems to me like you are comparing diferent items with different tools.... EDIT: Are you positive that the MBR you posted was from the actual disk in question? and is it disk 4 or disk 5 (or what)? jaclaz

NO. (meaning not that it doesn't help, meaning that I do not believe you ) There is no corresponding entry in the partition table of the MBR, so that thingy must be a "leftover" of some kind, or it belongs to ANOTHER disk, that looks a lot like the Windows 7 "default install on new media" partition, nothing to do with the XP you are running and the Vista that should have been on the failed disk. Let's see how it evolves jaclaz

Sure , as long as the disk is around 500 Gb, a dd-like image will take 500 Gb. Since I presume that the disk is fully functional, you can do a single image, in any case I recommend using this app: http://reboot.pro/7783/ so that in case of *need* you can use it to do a set of "separate images", as in here: http://reboot.pro/15040/#entry133567 Try with imaging the whole disk drive, and if you have issues, you can adopt "plan B" . Open the files you posted in tinyhexer (after having added to it's installation the structure viewer scripts). Try looking at the MBR (first sector of Physicaldrive) with both MBRview and PTview. Try looking at the VBR (first sector of LogicalDrive) with BSview (you will see something a lot like "a suffusion of yellow" ) and with the built-in "NTFS boot structure" (you will see a number of 0 values) jaclaz

Check: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-an-irq-setting-impacted-a-floppy-drive/1061251 jaclaz

Good. There are THREE (separate) issues the (only one, NTFS ID) partition in the MBR partition table is NOT active <-trivial to solve the partition has data #0 07 00 0 32 33 1023 254 63 2048 3907024896 (which means that it is an almost 2 Tb partition) the bootsector (VBR) is strange: the WHOLE BPB has been wiped out with a a B7 02 + a number of 00's (82 of them) <. I wonder what could have caused this, any possibility of a Virus? ) Let's leave #1 alone for the moment (as it is a non-problem). Important question: How big is the actual hard disk? Explanation: the data in the MBR is seemingly senseless, the data in the VBR is non-existing, if we know what is the total size of the hard disk we should be able to find "quickly" the second (or backup) copy of the VBR. In this case TESTDISK is of little use as it has only "wrong" or "missing" information to work with, I prefere to chack for that sector manually. Additionally: How familiar are you with a hex/disk editor? Get TinyHexer (and possibly my scripts for it, so that you will be able to "view" the same things I do) http://reboot.pro/8734/ Can you find another disk bigger than this one so that you can make a DD-like copy of the disk (better be safe than sorry) before starting fiddling with the failed disk? jaclaz

Windows or Windows Explorer? What happen if you open a command window while booted in GUI Windows 9x? jaclaz

Don't worry, it is quite common here to confuse the 90's with the 80's.... : @dencorso jaclaz

Before test disk, it would be interesting to understand what actually is on the disk. What are you running (I mean which os on which machine) to access that disk? Best would be a "plainer" OS, like XP, and use Hdhacker: http://dimio.altervista.org/eng/index.html and use it to save as files: First sector of Physicaldrive First sector of LogicalDrive You are saying that you see a drive as RAW, this should mean that at least the Magic Bytes in the MBR are there and that *something* is mapped as a partition (otherwise you would have a prompt asking to "initialize the disk" and you would see NO volumes in Explorer). Once you get the two sectors above, compress them to a .zip file and attach them to your next post. jaclaz

Well, it is , in the sense that it is a "tip of the iceberg", a single, rather simple 23 lines macro using a handful of functions. It is like giving half a thimble of water to someone that has just crossed the desert (but much better than nothing ). I was hoping to find some place like our own: MSFN Forum > Coding, Scripting and Servers > Programming (C++, Delphi, VB/VBS, CMD/batch, etc.) corner where HUNDREDS of small batches/ .vbs's can be found. But I have anyway to do a public FACEPALM: because, while experimenting I found an issue with a Macro function (it turned out it was not yet implemented in Spread32), so I contacted Stephen Bye, the nice Author of Spread32, and he advised me to check the actual Spread32 forum: http://spreadce.freeforums.org/ where OBVIOUSLY quite a few snippets are discussed/presented. To add to the list of MS documentation, he also pointed me to the http://support.microsoft.com/kb/143466/en-us (though it contains more or less the same things as the previously posted ones). About keys, JFYI , I usually "read" keys visually, learn them by heart. and can normally make a duplicate of one quickly without the original using the nice lishi key cutter I own (and that I paid a fortune ). jaclaz

There used to be a builder for one, from Qualystem, see here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=12326 But you can make one allright following the various links, (of course you will need to use EXTENSIVELY the Wayback Machine) example: http://web.archive.org/web/20051229215909/http://www.lachiesadicristo.it/w98cd/page1.htm Or using the Winimize approach: http://reboot.pro/forum/53/ http://reboot.pro/3835/ In the meantime a nice little thingy has come out, but if I recall correctly there were no takers to experiment with it : http://reboot.pro/2293/ jaclaz

See if Speedfan works on your setup: http://www.almico.com/speedfan.php jaclaz

Well, that is appropriate . If you insist on using Windows 98 you actually are stodgy and antiquated . The whole point is that there is nothing actually bad in being so , and - on the contrary - you are a modern ecologist, think at all the unused/unuseful bytes the stylish and forward-looking needlessly waste.... The thing I wonder is WHY it took you so long to get here! jaclaz

No. Making the clean room is "nothing" when compared to a head change on a multi-platter disk . To give you a term of comparison it sounds to me like : jaclaz

NO . Rest assured I can believe it . The amount of bloat is: http://thesaurus.com/browse/immeasurable jaclaz

Naaah, you got it wrong, the 90's are behind the green glass door : 1981 to 1989 are not there (though we made an exception for 1988 )! jaclaz

Fair enough . What about: jaclaz

... and I thought that 1982 didn't belong to the 90's I guess that the original idea was more along the lines of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spagna jaclaz

Maybe it's time to change the topic title , like : jaclaz

Oww, come on , you don't really want to know about the past of some members : jaclaz

No. All references we have for the 7200.12 (summed up in this post): are saying that the terminal works allright with the PCB not connected to the hard disk. But, of course the "click of death" has nothing to do with the common issues and could be caused EXACTLY by an unreadable part of the hard disk that thus fails to "calibrate" (or whatever). By any chance is the disk recognized in BIOS like here?: http://forums.seagate.com/t5/Barracuda-XT-Barracuda-Barracuda/Barracuda-7200-12-problem/td-p/128736 I doubt that there is any DIY way out for a "click of death", but you never know.... Are you positive that the disk is actually spinning? jaclaz

The Seagate "flow" of bricked disk mainly depended on an issue with a firmware, the hard disk wrote to a log at every switch on. When the entry in the log "hit" position 320 or any 320+n*256 the hard disk firmware "locked itself". You can read about it around here: BUT the symptoms you describe are however NOT apparently connected with a BSY or LBA0 kind of issue. In any case you cannot do *ANYTHING* while the disk is still inside the laptop. You need to take the disk out and connect it (through an USB adapter) to a working PC. It is very possible that by simply removing the disk and re-seating it, the issue disappears, as from what you write it sounds like a "dead" hard disk, which could well be a simple cable/connector problem. jaclaz

It is already difficult enough to try following you mixing two CF cards on two different systems, with a report once a week or so, at each test you seem like changing two things together (or doing more than one test per report, or report something else from what I need, I am really confused, see previous post #3) This makes NO sense (or it is completely irrelevant): When compared with: The BIOS shows the 4GB CF as Secondary Master - IDE Removable, but under the Boot submenu it shows the CF under both HDDs and Removable Devices. Cylinders 7769 Heads 16 Sectors 63 CHS Format 4010MB LBA Format 4010MB Multi-Sector Transfers Disabled LBA Mode Disabled 32 Bit I/O Enabled Transfer Mode FPIO 4 / DMA 2 Ultra DMA Mode Mode 2 Using grldr v0.4.4: drive 0x80 (LBA): C/H/S=1024/16/63 Sector Count/Size =1032192/512 However, currently I have updated to 0.4.6a so I need to check how that reports the geometry on the VL400. I'm not actually sure which version of the grub4dos MBR I have on there though (I would have installed it with the latest version of BOOTICE I have, which is 06-05-2012), nor how to update it (i've used grubinstgui in the past but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be available for recent versions and it seems to have the MBR hardcoded in the program, rather than being able to install a MBR file contained in the same directory, which would be handy). Perhaps you can suggest which MBR version I should install and a good way to do so (preferably from Windows)? Again, you are "mixing" things and/or posting confusing info. If you start again from scratch, maybe it will be possible to do (hopefully) some step forward. You were almost there here: http://reboot.pro/16737/page__st__50#entry155690 before you started doing all changes and variations you could think of (and one more) . General suggestions: You should NOT EVEN THINK of using grub4dos 0.4.6a, that is a test version. You should use ONLY 0.4.4 - 2009-10-16 (and NOT any other 0.4.4 version) unless told to use another version. You should NOT install the grub4dos MBR. You should try, WITHOUT making ANY modifications, of ANY kind unless told so, with a "plain" XP MBR, an XP bootsector, NTLDR, BOOT.INI and grldr Read the generic advice given in FAQ#10 here: http://jaclaz.altervista.org/Projects/USB/USBfaqs.html Now, it is almost clear that - for *any* reason - that that particular BIOS/CF card combo: sees the 4 Gb card as having a geometry of 16/63 does not "like" LBA mapped partitions AND/OR it doesn't "like" partitions bigger than 512 Mb (1024*16*63*512=528482304) So the next step would be to create a smaller partition, with a 16/63 geometry, FAT 16 CHS formatted, with the standard XP MBR and bootsector, NTLDR, BOOT.INI and grldr (0.4.4 - 2009-10-16). With mkimg: Can you simply do EXACTLY the above, transfer the image to the CF card and report? Please verify that once the image has been transferred to the CF card and the VL400 has been booted at least once with the card connected the MBR signature is non-zero. To do so, use MBRFIX (and NOT any other tool): http://www.sysint.no/nedlasting/mbrfix.htm MbrFix /drive <num> readsignature If it is 00000000 change it with: MbrFix /drive <num> writesignature 01020304 A meaningful (to me) report follows this scheme (let's number them so it will be easier): Machine used: the VL400 CF card used: the 4Gb one Partitioning scheme used: the one made with mkimg 264273408-16/63-06 Files in the device: NTLDR; BOOT.INI with contents as per post #18, glrldr from grub4dos 0.4.4 - 2009-10-16 Description of what happens when booting (if not any of the following) Description of what happens when booting when choosing the "Windows XP" entry (if it gets to the BOOT.INI choices) Description of what happens when booting when choosing the "grub4dos" entry (if it gets to the BOOT.INI choices) Result of grub4dos commands (if it gets to the grub> command prompt) for these commands: root geometry (hd0) geometry (hd1) Once you have posted this info, you are kindly requested to NOT do any change to anything until I suggest you WHICH changes to try. I know that I sound like an old, grumpy bastard, mainly because I am an old, grumpy bastard , but also because this thingy is getting on my nerves, it should have taken NO time to find a solution or a workaround for your issue, but it is going on for what? 3 MONTHS? Maybe this way we can get rid of it quickly . jaclaz

You do understand that you never posted the contents of the BOOT.INI? Now, be nice, please FORGET whatever you have done and let's start again from fresh, OK? Remove the grub4dos MBR+hidden sectors, replacing it with the "standard" 2K/XP MBR. Make sure that the FAT32 filesystem has the standard 2K/XP bootsector invoking NTLDR. Copy to the filesystem only NTLDR, BOOT.INI and grldr. Make sure that the BOOT.INI contents are as follows: [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="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect C:\grldr="Grub4Dos" In other words, you want to have this way to load grub4dos (and NOT any other way): http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/install_windows.htm#windows1 In a "perfect" world, you would use the MBRbatch command to create a proper disk image and then dd it to the card. Once you are ready, INDPENDENTLY from whether it is booting to the BOOT.INI choices or not, extract the MBR and bootsector eith hdhacker and post them, together with a description of what exactly happens when you try to boot. jaclaz

With all due respect , I completely fail to see how yours is NOT as well anecdotal evidence at best , or if you prefer, apart the divergence of opinions, your post contains the SAME *whatever* you are saying MagicAndre1981's post contains . I also completely fail to see the BIG differences between Asus (Asustek), Asrock and Pegatron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asustek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASRock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegatron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegatron_Corporation To me they are just names/brands all revolving around the same "main group". jaclaz

Naah, this one would be UNpolite (remember that most of the good guys that write BIOSes are from the far East), what you could have: YGISBTO = Your guess is surely better than ours On the other hand, if our good friend Sinofsky would put his hands on BIOSes, you would have the simplification of only one choice: WYCWWDWWFBFY8=Whatever you choose we will do whatever we find better for you (8 means than only Windows 8 will ever boot from this PC) jaclaz