jaclaz

Sure : http://www.plop.at/ http://forum.plop.at/ jaclaz

What does it mean? Why the Lord of WinXP is so negative? Not at all "negative", a simple, plain, statement. Would you prefer that I lie and EITHER: tell you (falsely) that I know a perfect solution for that issue but I am not going to tell you exactly how to do it OR tell you (falsely) that I know a perfect solution for that issue then send you on some wild goose chase jaclaz

For the record, that command WILL NOT update the MBR code, it will update the bootsector or PBR one, you need to have the Windows 7 version of bootsect.exe and add the switch /mbr to it to modify the MBR code. The original article: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-US/library/49ded4da-b66f-4b42-9563-04c218a1a6ac.aspx leads to confusion. The Windows 7 version has the added /mbr switch: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd744577(v=ws.10).aspx jaclaz

Look, it's like comparing Orange and Apples, it can be done allright: http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html but not necessarily using the one will be an answer to a problem that can be solved by the other. A Porsche 911 is much faster than a Toyota Hilux truck, but if the issue at hand is "how do I bring my apples (or oranges for that matter) to the fruit market to sell them?" the latter is a more suitable answer to the question. As well, remember that "native" VHD booting is available only with some of "high end" Windows 7 licenses. jaclaz

That should mean that you have some setting in your OS that prevents writing (to be 100% sure you can test those devices on another PC). There are two main reasons for this, one is the use of this key in Registry: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\StorageDevicePolicies] “WriteProtect”=dword:00000001 there are tens or maybe hundreds of "USB protect" softwares that use the above, if this is the case, you can use info here: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/registry-hack-to-disable-writing-to-usb-drives/ to disable the key. The other one is this particular software that implements a READ ONLY filter driver in the system: http://www.softpedia.com/progViewOpinions/USB-Write-Protect-163146,.html http://www.nareshmdr.com.np/index.php?pg=mysoft_info&soft=usbwp (though there may be others that use the same approach) Of course only you can say if you ever run the above mentioned - or some similar - software. jaclaz

Maybe, just maybe, if a Manufacturer tool says that one of their disk drives is "password protected and can not be tested" maybe it is because ACTUALLY the device is "password protected". Remove the password from the disk. This may be possible or not depending whether you know the password and WHICH type of password has been set. The mentioned SecureErase/HDDerase may be able to deal with it, as well as hdparm: https://ata.wiki.kernel.org/articles/a/t/a/ATA_Secure_Erase_936d.html Read this, also: http://www.rockbox.org/lock.html jaclaz

Though I can see an interesting use of USB drives, as the PC's I have do not have a port/connector to which I can connect a VHD. jaclaz

Here, right after you . And this thread is about installing TO an USB stick, not really a surprise that your mileage may vary. I have NO idea WHat is happening/WHY it is happening, so all I can do is provide some "generic" advice. You should check the available methods and become VERY familiar with them before attempting to introduce variations/complications, expecially if mainly UNneeded (in the sense of NOT really-really needed): http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ A much easier approach would be, if you really-really *need* to have the source in second partition to (temporarily) switch partitions and make it first one: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=24392&start=0 On the other hand why some of the known methods to install XP from USB do use, in case of "Fixed device" (i.e. USB hard disk) a "reversed dummydisk.sys" to make it become "removable"? jaclaz

Yep , I would also add the adjective UNSTABLE to the "explosive" substantive. jaclaz

OT , but not much search for "revolutionary" on this page : http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=19004 Abd - still OT but not that much - a comparison related to design evolution: http://reboot.pro/16395/ jaclaz

Actually much more than enough. The ONLY needed thing is usually to 00 out the first sector of the device, if - for any reason - "normal" Disk Management cannot deal with it. More commonly the only actual thing that may be needed is to 00 out last two bytes of first sector, removing the "Magic Bytes" 55AA, and thus getting, as soon as you open Disk Management, the prompt to "initialize" the disk: http://reboot.pro/12253/ jaclaz

.... and NT based systems have a HAL (hardware abstraction Layer), thus *anything* the BIOS says is ignored by the OS that re-interrogates everything through device drivers as soon as the real mode part of booting switches to protected mode ...... I would personally take BIOS out of the list of 2K related questions. A BIOS will either work (or completely fail to) with 4 Kb disk drives, no matter the OS that will be later loaded..... jaclaz

Do you mean that you: tested Atto AND tested it AND it works on WIn9x downloaded it BUT NOT tested it under Win9x downoaded it AND tested it AND it does NOT work n Win9x Same as above for "USB Flash Drive Tester". If you prefer, I am sure that people wouuld appreciate the results of the tests as opposed to a list of what you have downloaded, no matter if listed for WIN9x or not . jaclaz

Atto could be "old enough" to run under 9x (but cannot say): http://reboot.pro/9874/ jaclaz

jaclaz

That's exactly the behaviour I described earlier (which I tested on XP). Gunsmokingman introduced a "variation" on the theme adding a number to the name of the item that may have confused you (or I confused you by NOT adding the number to the name and echoing instead the number ) Yes, the point - as I see it - is that creating a .ini stile file, i.e. with lines of the type: item=value through ECHO should be a "common enough" kind of task, and it is strange that noone around here had noticed this strange behaviour, Yep, same here, and IMHO it is the "fun" part of it! jaclaz

No problem , I have casually saved your previous code (the one that you originally posted tagged as "your final solution") so that is preserved for posterity's sake: jaclaz

From what you report the disk is in BSY state. To check whether it is spinning or not do this: After three years and having not (AFAIK) the 5400.6 a "common, known" kind of manufacturing defect as the 7200.11 I guess it is simply a "dead disk". Do you have valuable data that you want to recover on it or not? Read this: AND links in it BEFORE anything else, we don't have a "ready made", "tested and verified" solution for that particular drive. jaclaz

Are you telling me that you test batch files by double clicking on them? For the record, the proper procedure is normally: open a cmd prompt window navigate to where the batch is stored type in the command line the name of the batch OR add a PAUSE statement before the end of the file or before the final GOTO :EOF in "main". jaclaz

No prob whatsoever. Corollary to my previous post is that since the two different ways to set the NtfsMftZoneReservation were respectively set with Win NT 4.0 Service Pack 4 (SP4) and changed with Vista http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc767961.aspx http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;174619&sd=tech http://support.microsoft.com/?id=961095 and this issue was never AFAIK/AFAICR raised, I would rate the priority of the theoretical problem as extremely low. Seemingly - and at least initially - the setting was "carved in stone" and only applied to newly created filesystems: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc767961.aspx jaclaz

Look, the snippet I posted, when executed on the particular page you mentioned (GEN 0 GENERAL.html) provides this output: Now this may be in part or totally what you were attempting to do (or could be something else alltogether), but rest assured, that - having written the snippet - I perfectly know not only what it does, but also how it works, and - with all due respect - you don't seem like being in a condition to tell me what I should or must do. The posted snippet is intended as a mere example of how to do something that is what I have understood (possibly wrongly) from your confusing, mixed up, incomplete description of a goal. If you state EXACTLY what your goal is (in it's entirety) I may be able to "tune" the above base parsing routine to your requirements (IF I will feel like doing so). If you prefer my attempt was INSTEAD of correcting your attempts (IMHO using a "wrong" approach to the problem) to provide you with a working example to provide you with some "alternative" ideas (which of course you are perfectly free to use in parts or totally or to completely ignore). What I find inappropriate is: the lack of even a little "thank you" for the time I spent in attempting to help you (no matter the result) the use of "should" or "must" related to anything I might (or completely fail to) do jaclaz

Forget about Linux (or DOS or windows or any OS). Just boot with the disk attached and check the BIOS, is it detected? If NO, it is a BSY of some kind IF yes, BUT with a size of 0, it's a LBA0. Please note that there could be many reasons for a BSY, but yes, what you describe does sound like a BSY status. For the record there is NO lubricant of ANY kind on the platters (only air), there is lubricant inside the (motor) bearing - which yes, can lead to a stuck bearing. Stuck heads are usually due to physical contact (usually connected to a fall or a hard hit) between heads and platters. The behaviour you describe is that of: a functional motor/bearing (spins up/spins down) a functional head arm (clicks - as opposed to "buzz") an issue with the ability to read some "initial" data on the platters (BSY or LBA0, cannot say which just from the description) @AVIATEL BEFORE upgrading the firmware, do get all your DATA and make a backup. Then proceed normally with the instructions from Seagate. In any case DO NOT consider the disk to be "reliable" or - maybe better said - "more reliable" than it was before the firmware upgrade. (we don't know if your issue was due to the original cause - which is relatively innocuous - or by *something else* and only by *sheer luck* the solution worked on your disk - only because it is a sort of "general reset") jaclaz

No, I guess that is one of the "quirks" of batch/command line parsing, if you try: echo mytest=3>>mytest.txt or: echo mytest=9>>mytest.txt the behaviour is the same, BUT if you try: echo mytest=1>>mytest.txt (which is the redirection you suspect, the result is "mytest=" echoed to the file, using 2 works like the other bigger numbers and 0, but in the case of 2, as well as of 1 it is the "expected behaviour") AND if you try: echo mytest=10>>mytest.txt or: echo mytest=d>>mytest.txt everything reverts to "normal". So it is seemingly something that happens: with numbers only with a single number only with number 0 and numbers 3÷9 only (the behaviour with 1 and 2 is "as expected") The same issue happens also if you put (.ini style) a space on both sides of the = sign: echo mytest = 0>>mytest.txt Try running this: @ECHO OFF IF EXIST mytest.txt DEL mytest.txt ECHO mytest=0>>mytest.txt ECHO 0&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE ECHO mytest=1>>mytest.txt ECHO 1&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE ECHO mytest=2>>mytest.txt ECHO 2&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE ECHO mytest=3>>mytest.txt ECHO 3&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE ECHO mytest=4>>mytest.txt ECHO 4&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE ECHO mytest=5>>mytest.txt ECHO 5&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE ECHO mytest=6>>mytest.txt ECHO 6&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE ECHO mytest=7>>mytest.txt ECHO 7&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE ECHO mytest=8>>mytest.txt ECHO 8&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE ECHO mytest=9>>mytest.txt ECHO 9&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE ECHO mytest=10>>mytest.txt ECHO 10&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE ECHO mytest=11>>mytest.txt ECHO 11&TYPE mytest.txt&PAUSE And watch attentively the behaviour. EDIT: Nice different behaviour also with DELAYEDEXPANSION: @ECHO OFF SETLOCAL ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSION SET zero=0 SET one=1 SET two=2 SET three=3 ECHO with "%%" IF EXIST mytest.txt DEL mytest.txt ECHO mytest=%zero%>>mytest.txt ECHO 0&TYPE mytest.txt ECHO mytest=%one%>>mytest.txt ECHO 1&TYPE mytest.txt ECHO mytest=%two%>>mytest.txt ECHO 2&TYPE mytest.txt ECHO mytest=%three%>>mytest.txt ECHO 3&TYPE mytest.txt PAUSE ECHO Now with "^!" IF EXIST mytest.txt DEL mytest.txt ECHO mytest=!zero!>>mytest.txt ECHO 0&TYPE mytest.txt ECHO mytest=!one!>>mytest.txt ECHO 1&TYPE mytest.txt ECHO mytest=!two!>>mytest.txt ECHO 2&TYPE mytest.txt ECHO mytest=!three!>>mytest.txt ECHO 3&TYPE mytest.txt PAUSE jaclaz

Yes , to clear my previous post, the accent is on: @Fr33m4n If you do a DIR of the WHOLE volume, you will notice it, example two (very small identically sized) volumes, E:\ and J:\, J: contains a "real folder" Test_source and in it there is a file "100Kb.000" in E:\ there is a "junction" test_jumction pointing to the J:\Test_Source: E:\>DIR /S Il volume nell'unità E non ha etichetta. Numero di serie del volume: 7843-5EB0 Directory di E:\ 23/02/2012 18.39 1.024 1Kb.000 23/02/2012 20.55 <JUNCTION> test_junction 1 File 1.024 byte Directory di E:\test_junction 23/02/2012 18.38 <DIR> . 23/02/2012 18.38 <DIR> .. 23/02/2012 18.38 102.400 100Kb.000 1 File 102.400 byte Totale file elencati: 2 File 103.424 byte 3 Directory 594.944 byte disponibili J:\>DIR /S Il volume nell'unità J non ha etichetta. Numero di serie del volume: D84E-9528 Directory di J:\ 23/02/2012 18.39 1.024 1Kb.000 23/02/2012 18.38 <DIR> Test_source 1 File 1.024 byte Directory di J:\Test_source 23/02/2012 18.38 <DIR> . 23/02/2012 18.38 <DIR> .. 23/02/2012 18.38 102.400 100Kb.000 1 File 102.400 byte Totale file elencati: 2 File 103.424 byte 3 Directory 492.544 byte disponibili J:\> jaclaz

I think that it is both. I.e.: it is the way it works (no doubts after the extensive experimentations by DiracDeBroglie, though obviously an external confirmation would be nice) it is a problem as theoretically it does pose a problem Right now it seems like there could be an issue of this kind (IF I get it right the data till now experienced): a disk is mounted normally on a XP system (that has been set - senselessly - with NtfsMftZoneReservation=4) the disk is connected to a system running 7 (with a "standard" NtfsMftZoneReservation=1) a reboot on the windows 7 system is performed (if needed to "trigger" a change the behaviour of the $MFT reservation ) some files are copied to the disk from the windows 7 system right after the current, "reduced size" reservation zone the disk is returned to the Windows XP system Will it's structure be (slightly or profoundly) altered? Will this have effects on (say) data access speed? Will this have effects on (say) recoverability of (previously and independently or during the "windows 7 session") deleted files? ..... The NtfsMftZoneReservation is a "system wide" setting, affecting *all* drives, if - for any reason - there is a nedd to "mantain" different disks with different MFT reservation sizes across different OS, I find inmteresting to understand if it is possibel to do so, and if not WHATwill happen when *something* is changed, and exactly WHEN it will happen .... Sure , but it is interesting IMHO to understand the exact way this happens. jaclaz