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

Just for the record, those "browser addons" do not exist (AFAIK) but javascript does . UNrelated example: http://weblogs.asp.net/cumpsd/archive/2004/02/13/72404.aspx Additionally: http://wiki.imacros.net/Introducing_iMacros jaclaz

Additional to allen2's nice suggestion , the redirection can be "multiline", like: ( ECHO myothervar=1 ECHO andyetanothersetting=0 echo InstallAsService=0 )>> props.file in this case, if you can do all the writing "together" you can also use the single ">" like in: ( ECHO myothervar=1 ECHO andyetanothersetting=0 echo InstallAsService=0 )>props.file jaclaz

Interesting. A workaround (just to solve the issue): SET InstallAsService=0&SET InstallAsService>>props.file using the SET command, and another one using redirection BEFORE: >>props.file ECHO InstallAsService=0 method #3 here: http://www.robvanderwoude.com/redirection.php jaclaz

I cannot comment on the issues you are having but the above sounds to me EXACTLY how a junction shoud behave. You should take some time on this page (where also junctions are talked about): http://schinagl.priv.at/nt/ln/ln.html Basically if you look at the junction directory it is a "mirror" of the target, try checking the available space on the WHOLE volume (and not the one IN the junction directory). jaclaz

Not really-really a mistery like Lochness : http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2007/06/13/the-devil-is-in-the-details.aspx The link to the original post of the Spanish guy who found the photo is in the above blog: http://inicia.es/de/kwisatz/ jaclaz

Well, then you already know what you want to do, so an interesting question would be why you asked a completely different question? (and BTW failed to provide a simple answer to a simple question related to a possible solution to the original question ) Have fun looking for the privilege escalation in the Linux install. jaclaz

HMMM. It is also possible that something is physically written to the disk BUT read only at a reboot. I.e. it is a three steps procedure: you change the setting in the Registry *something* reads this setting and writes *something* else to disk at next reboot the *something else* is read from disk and the changes are applied I am short of ideas. jaclaz

I have no idea. I simply gave a possible answer to dencorso's question. I am "The Finder", AND NOT "The Low Level Device Programmer" . Just for the record (and to stir a bit the pot ) *any* latin language may have done : Portuguese: dispositivo Spanish: dispositivo Italian: dispositivo French: dispositif Romanian: dispozitiv

What about the snippet I posted? Did you also fail to try it? jaclaz

I guess it needs to be taken in steps. WHICH "Linux" bootloader/bootmanager is used? If you have a way to write files to the internal disk, it could be possible to chainload from the "Linux" bootloader/bootmanager grub4dos and from this latter to boot the XP (or whatever else). This would happen long after the BIOS has ended it's scope, so there wouldn't be problems with it. From what you write I have the feeling that the thing that is "checked" is not however the bootloader/bootmanager, but rather the actual MBR or PBR on the disk. The only possible issue that I can foresee is IF the disk signature in the MBR is set to 00000000 (which could be "normal" for a Linux install, as Linux dosn't use this reference) which would be a problem for NT booting. jaclaz

If I were you I would try "tricking" Windows 7 to believe that that Logical partition is a Primary one. What happens if you change the partition ID in the MBR from 0F to (say) 12? (of course this may work ONLY to shrink from the initial Logical Partition size to the end of last logical volume in it or to expand the size of the Logical partition "to the right") If you are into experimenting "foreign" tools/Os, I woulsd suggest you to make a test with Partition Logic CD/iso: http://partitionlogic.org.uk/ as it has a few nice features.... jaclaz

It sounds like another disk that does not want (or cannot) spin up (read a few posts just above yours) jaclaz

Try waiting some 20-30 seconds after powering the device and before issuing Ctrl+z: jaclaz

Procmon needs some time to get familiar with. If I were you I would try : removing ALL filters Add only one filter: Check "Drop filtered events" jaclaz

This might do: @echo off setlocal EnableDelayedExpansion set "source=GEN 0 GENERAL.html" echo In file:%source% ECHO. FOR /F "tokens=* delims=" %%A IN ('FIND ".pdf" "%source%" ^|FIND "href"^|FIND "class="') DO ( SET Line="%%A" CALL :Line_process ) GOTO :EOF :Line_process SET Line=!Line:^<=§! SET Line=!Line:^>=§! :loop_href IF NOT "!line:~1,4!"=="href" SET Line="!Line:~2,-1!"&GOTO :loop_href SET File="!Line:~7,-1!" CALL :File_name !File! SET Line="!File:%Filepath%=!" :loop_class IF NOT "!line:~1,4!"=="§§b§" SET Line="!Line:~2,-1!"&GOTO :loop_class SET File="!Line:~4,-1!" FOR /F "tokens=1 delims=§" %%B IN (!File!) DO SET FileTitle=%%B&SET File= SET File GOTO :EOF :File_name SET Filepath="%~1" SET Filename="%~nx1" GOTO :EOF jaclaz

Yes, I was not sure having understood what was actually asked, so I posted an example with both logics in post #5. In any case the problem - one way or the other - is solved. jaclaz