jaclaz

Good , but you didn't answer my questions. How many sectors before has the partition when you run that WinPE? It is possible that the Registry settings does not have effect. How big is the partition you create? Can you state the EXACT words of the error message you get? Are they among the ones listed here?: jaclaz

Hmmm. Just for the record, and with all due respect , in the HO of jaclaz this nice : tutorial should be tagged INSTEAD: (aka How to NOT Fix Your Computer But Workaround The Whatever Issue You Have By Starting From Scratch) Needed Carpenter comparison: Q. How do I replace a wooden beam of the roof? A. It would be easier to demolish the house and start rebuilding it from it's foundations. jaclaz

Well, it depends on the type of data you send. You see, 1's are slim enough, 0's are rather fat and may get slowed down by friction in the tinier electronic pipes. As long as you send lots of 1's everything seems normal but when you want to actually 00 out a stick, it will get SLOW. Though for very different reasons, the effect is not completely unlike what happens with cable connections: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=21827&st=23 though if you use 0's and 8's on those tiny USB sticks, you will actually worsen the issue jaclaz

Which OS are you running? If Windows, you open a command console, navigate to where you have TESTDISK, then run it. You want to Create a LOG file. Get here: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk_Step_By_Step and get familiar with the usage. Which OS was the hard disk partitioned with originally? If it was XP/2003 or earlier when you start TESTDISK you do DO NOT allow partitions out of cylinder boundaries, if it was Vista or later you DO allow that. http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Menu_Options XP and earlier: Cylinder Boundary: Yes Allows partial last Cylinder: No Vista and later: Cylinder Boundary: No Allows partial last Cylinder: Yes Select the right disk then run Analyse: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Menu_Analyse and report what you find. (you will find the relevant data in the log) jaclaz

And I didn't trust your word for it and asked you to try the .reg in the hope that you had somehow made a mistake manually. but that one was LATE as he posted this info AFTER I asked you to try the .reg file. Now, if "someone else" would also confirm that UNregistering the shimgvw.dll does not work, he may also reply to the 2 (TWO) questions that you left UNanswered: IF UNregistering the .dll works, then "someone else" (but not necessarily the SAME "someone else" ) may be able to patch the .dll to replace the called function with something like Nada or The DUD. jaclaz

WHY would you want to attempt fixing a NON existent problem? Your disk is NOT BSY anymore, it is NOT LBA0, DO NOT fiddle with the TTL thingy anymore! jaclaz

What do you thik I posted on #7? A link to a page. A number to fiind the EXACT tweak. If you go there, you will be able to find two .reg files, one to enable and one to disable. I then posted a copy of each of the two .reg files inside CODE tags, to show which keys were involved. In a normal windows when you double click on a file with extension .reg, you are offered to "merge" the info in it to the current online Registry. jaclaz

The good news are that you succesfully recovered form the BSY. The bad news are that you need to repair your partition(s). DO NOT allow windows to format the partition(s). Have a look at this thread: to get an idea of the procedure involved, then please start a NEW thread about the issue (you are now outside the scope of the present thread ) jaclaz

Try merging the posted .reg file. Reboot. Please DO NOT quote WHOLE posts. jaclaz

This should not happen. You should be able, running as Administrator, to Register and UNregister dll's allright. HOW EXACTLY did you run the command? WHICH EXACT error did you get? Well, then I guess you will have to live with that "smart" feature enabled. Out of curiosity, WHAT are the contents of the keys: HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.jpeg HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.jpg HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.bmp on your system? jaclaz

No. I am pretty sure that you think you did that , but I asked the EXACT, detailed, down to the minutiae steps you executed, just like you did for this: namely I suspect that you did not set the partition as Active. Since this is delicate matter, where each single word has a definite meaning, and I am particularly "picky" you cannot "format a hard drive". You are actually: initializing a (hard) disk (drive) partitioning the disk into one or more partition(s) of which one is a primary, i.e. creating one or more drive(s) or volume(s) formatting the drive (or volume) by creating a filesystem on it Yes, it is a possibility , but the solution (changing the partition alignment settings in the Registry) has always been working. Try again, after having applied the Registry changes to the PE. You can use any MBR editor/disk editor/partition table viewer to check the actual alignment that was used and to check the Active status of the partition. A standard XP will make partition start at CHS 0/1/1 LBA 63. A standard PE2/3 will make partition start at CHS 0/32/33 LBA 2048 A PE 2/3 with the proposed mods to the Registry will behave as XP does. How big is the partition you create? Try doing it smaller than 128/137 Gb limit, just in case: http://www.48bitlba.com/ jaclaz

Then you can try to UNregister shimgvw.dll: http://www.msoutlook.info/question/9 BUT I have NO idea if there are any "strings attached" to such a removal http://tweaks.com/windows/36689/disable-windows-picture-and-fax-viewer/ and/or if the known ones are aproblem for you. jaclaz

The XP way was: http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_tweaks.htm #269 Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.jpeg] "PerceivedType"="" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.jpg] "PerceivedType"="" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.bmp] "PerceivedType"="" And, to re-enable: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.jpeg] "PerceivedType"="image" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.jpg] "PerceivedType"="image" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.bmp] "PerceivedType"="image" maybe it works the same on 7 jaclaz

No, you don't actually "know" ANYTHING (except from what you were told by those guys, which, for all you -or we - can say, can be an absolute truth or a big pile of b*ll§hit ) There is NOT *any* 'ST_M13FQBL' problem, that string simply means that the disk drive sends a "botched" string to the BIOS, this could be the symptom of several different issues. From the little I know, and without further data/details, it sounds to me NOT anythng connected with "swap the rotor chip, bufer chip and controller chip ", though. It is very possible that by reprogramming/fixing the contents of the ROM (provided that it was not fried in any of the previous attempts, the disk can be revived, but the problem is HOW would you do that? You could buy a PC-3000 (which last time I checked shipped for around US$ 3,000 ) or a similar tool from Salvation Data, slighlty more economical, or you could try (IF your disk is "covered") the SEDIV software: http://sediv2008.narod.ru/ If I were you, and if you actually are interested to retrieving the (important but not worth US$ 850) data, I would try checking other KNOWN, RELIABLE recovery companies/experts and see if you can find someone that is available to attempt the recovery for a smaller price, but do not expect anything below the US$ 350÷500 range. Just so you know, data recovery companies/experts inspire different sentiments, there are of course, and I presume the large majority, very good and nice guys among them :thumbsup:, but there are also (a few, but not so few) some of them that are in plain English crooks . I have had reports of people that were asked as much as US$ 500÷600 to "recover" data from Seagates with the "common" BSY/LBA, and had at least one report of a data recovery service that actually when asked to give back the disk "as is", actually sabotaged it. jaclaz

Hmm. I presume that, no matter which ramdisk it is, you should rather than Device Manager, use a tool like this (both Services and Devices): http://p-nand-q.com/download/pserv_cpl.html http://p-nand-q.com/gtools/pserv3.html disable the thingy, then delete it. jaclaz

I.E. EXACTLY you were told here a few posts above. So you LIED when you said that you had NO valid answers, you simply had (at least one) valid answer, that you decided to ignore in favour of another completely wrong answer (because it was simpler). You also said that you were going to do the Rom swap, now, evidently you changed idea and brought the HD to a recovery firm to do that work (which mind you, might be a wise choice). Now you whine about the (very high) price they asked you. You should rephrase this: "it's so important to the maximum extent of a commercial value of ........ (10/20/50/100) US Dollars" jaclaz

Maybe not the "best", but surely among the "eligible" ones, though of course in a Server environment you have regular and frequent backups, so, the data loss risk is not that much (and dynamic disks do offer some advantages/features that may be handy in such an Environment). @Basil I will make the previous advice a bit stronger : DO NOT EVEN THINK of using dynamic disks, EVER! jaclaz

If you followed the instructions "to the T", the problematic step(s) should be this one(s): Given for assured that Step 4 is OK, i.e. that image capture is successful, the problem might be Step 5. Can you try describing in your own words and EXACTLY, down to the minutiae, what you did with regards to this step? (it seems to me clear enough, but maybe I am overlooking something or the instructions can be interpreted differently from what I do) WINFLP is an entirely different thing/approach from the one referenced to. And yes, it is possible to create a hardware independent XP image, a good way is to use Offline Sysprep: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showforum=43 If you want, once solved the issue you are currently having, we may talk about it . jaclaz

A (German) bunny added to the basket! : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128727&st=10 jaclaz

Leave it/them as "basic". Dynamic disks features make sense (if any) in a Server environment. http://www.petri.co.il/difference_between_basic_and_dynamic_disks_in_windows_xp_2000_2003.htm http://www.techrepublic.com/article/understand-the-use-of-basic-and-dynamic-disks-in-windows/5034875 jaclaz

Actually this is most probably correct. The USB protocol prevents some "data structures" to "pass through". As an example, try accessing an hard disk with Victoria for windows when it is directly connected to the MB (Pata or Sata) and when it is connected through a USB adapter/external case. See above. The "Sectors before" are data stored in the MBR, you can (obviously) access these no matter the interface/connection. If you prefer this kind of data is "public". Manufacturer proprietary tools, generally speaking use different ways to connect to the device, having access to other, proprietary, settings. Even if there is no need whatsoever to use those to align or re-align a partition, it is very possible that they have a "base" program using this kind of "privileged" access instead of "standard" reading/writing, and they made the aligning tool out of this "base". Because that data is NOT in the S.M.A.R.T. set of attributes, but in other data structures (no, don't ask me where exactly) and these latter data structures are anyway "publicly" accessible. jaclaz

What you posted makes NO sense whatsoever. You EITHER use a Usb to TTL adapter OR a RS232 to TTL adapter OR a USB to RS232 AND a RS232 to TTL adapter. WHICH wires? Have you tried a loopback test? This is written ALL OVER the place as a VITAL step to ensure that the adapter and hyperterminal are working properly. Re. read (or read for the first time and ATTENTIVELY the READ-ME-FIRST: and the FGA's: ALL of them, and particularly pont #8 of read-me first and #4 of FGA's. Then, post again and describe EXACTLY WHICH adapter are you using and EXACTLY WHICH wires are you talking about AND more generally HOW EXACTLY you connected all the equipment involved (besides results of loopback test). @smandurlo If you take your time reading the zillion reports on this thread, you will see that the actual output after the m0,2 .... etc. command can vary. This may depend on pre-existing firmware but also from the actual issue the drive has (had) before the fix. Again, we have no way to know what EXACTLY is the issue, we only observe the appearing symptoms (BSY or LBA) and apply to the thingy a "generic" fix or, more exactly, a form of "general reset", so the different output may mean different issue, anyway fixed by the cure. jaclaz

No. http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html How would knowing if anyone else used it help you in following it? However, basically that post is about a way to deploy a XP initiated-from-hard-disk install. The imagex and wim usage are just means to replace *any* disk/drive imaging software. Just as an example, you could use DRIVEIMAGEXML to the same effect. (and you would note need a PE 2 or higher). jaclaz

Since the BIOS is flashable and available, it could be interesting if you could detail HOW exactly the driver is matched to the BIOS. http://www.wimsbios.com/forum/topic10688.html jaclaz

Egg nog is basically .... worse than the devil in "The devil egg nog made me speed so much, officer." jaclaz