jaclaz

Sure, sorry for the misunderstanding I meant TWO compiled apps, \x32\myniceapp.exe and \x64\myniceapp.exe (or whatever). Maybe you could then provide FOUR of them, two statically linked and two using the .dll's. No hurry whatsoever. When and if you'll be ready, you can upload it to zshare or hotfile or the like and then I can get them and attach 'em to a post on MSFN (I don't know how much space you have available as you have a relatively low number of posts). Or you could contact any of the Mods/Admins and see if they can enlarge your upload quota. jaclaz

That's the interesting point, as long as you do this for recovery purposes AND NOT for purposes of backing up your Windows operating system: you are OK. After 4 (four) years noone ever attempted to explain that to me, though, so I am still in my primitive (possible mis-) understanding of the matter : http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=19355&st=134 Thanks for the more detailed report , but now that you are in the right mood: why don't you make that thingy as a compiled executable both 32 and 64 bit and additionally post the compiled app? (and possibly add to it your .hta?) jaclaz

NO , I cannot, please review my comment there. jaclaz

Are you going to post WHICH EXACTLY "2 files" were missing? Or do we need to apply some torture to extort you this information? Boy, do I hate reports of success that completely FAIL to detail HOW EXACTLY the goal was reached.... jaclaz

Yes, free can mean BOTH free as in freedom and free as in free beer. IMHO whenever someone is asking you to register, it is NOT anymore free (as in free beer) as you actually pay the software by giving away some personal information. And it is not of course "free as in freedom" as you have to register. As an example, my half-@§§ed scripts are free, I don't want to know who you are, what is your e-mail, and you don't even have to respect the suggested Careware license: http://jaclaz.altervista.org/Projects/careware.html Though I understand the reasons why someone which produces also Commercial products is interested in your data and actually there is nothing "bad" in asking for them, and in giving them as well, still it is not "free". jaclaz

Good , just for the record, according to jaclaz the "right direction" is : NEVER have a single biggish partition on a device make the more partitions you can, as most of the chores like backing up, defragging, chkdsk will be faster and easier you will have more flexibility, like the possibility of installing a second instance of the OS (or another OS), or an emergency recovery system jaclaz

Unfortunately my crystall ball is in the shop for tuning. How do you suppose that I can from a (lousy ) screenshot understand WHAT THE HECK you have done BEFORE getting to it? See if this helps : http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html BTW, I gave you a number f possible options in a given order, have you already tested "OPTION FOUR" and failed? jaclaz

Or, to rephrase, if you open Disk Management can you see about 64 Gb of unallocated data after (on the right of ) the 64 Gb volume that you imaged/cloned? jaclaz

Are you sure the partiions were "wiped"? Maybe some files were deleted from the filesystem, but I have never seen CHKDSK actually "wipe" anything. AFAIK CHKDSK only works at \\.\LogicalDrive level (drive letter), so at the most can mess up the filesystem, or even "wipe" some of the bootsector data, but don't think that it can access the \\.\PhysicalDrive for writing. (or we have a different definition for "wipe" ) jaclaz

Yes and no, I mean Windows 98 is DOS , so there is clearly an advantage, but you can use a "pure" DOS app to image and restore a Windows 2k allright: http://www.partition-saving.com/ Yes, as long as you don't hit the 1 Gb ram issue (or know how to deal with it) AND you are in the under 128 Gb bigLBA club, and possibly a few more issues/quirks that are actually solvable, mostly thanks to the dedication ans support by MSFN members , but all in all I wouldn't define it "easy-peasy" or recommend attempting doing it to a newbie, and as I just posted also 2K/XP is perfectly possible and not all that difficult, but definitely I would define BOTH a Win9x and a NT/2K/XP hardware migration "not for the faint of heart". jaclaz

Yes, more generally if you have some of the "strange" conditions mentioned, your filesystem will be partly corrupted/in an inconsistent state and you WILL have to run CHKDSK with the /F or /R switch, and this, though will fix the filesystem problem is likely to have you "lose" a few files. Defragmenting thoroughfully the disk dynamic volume before attempting the flip is the best thing you can do to minimize the risks. jaclaz

Yep , I understand now, but this is not really "accurate". As long as we are within the IDE/PATA realm, there is no problem whatsoever, the actual "disk host" driver is still the same, no matter the motherboard, you need (if you are using a specific driver) to revert BEFORE the move to the "Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller" driver and you are set. BUT the migration won't possibly work anyway, but for OTHER reasons, like the chipset of processor or video driver, though. Normally this is NOT a "real problem" as you run a Repair Install (from CD) and usually the migration completes allright. The usual procedure is (was): change the video driver to "Standard VGA" change the disk controller driver to "Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller" remove each and every device you can from device manager shutdown the system and move the disk to the "other" system try booting in "Safe Mode" if no errors try booting "normally" if problem run a repair install Same procedure (more or less) is applicable to XP/2003: http://michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html Surely not the most linear/straighforward thing in the world , but doable allright . jaclaz

Please no , not again, Clonezilla is a cloning/imaging app and NOT a backup solution. http://clonezilla.org/]CloneZilla *anything* that copies sectors is a sector based imaging/cloning solution (and NOT a backup solution) and if it copies ALL sectors it is "forensically sound" *anything* that copies sectors is a sector based imaging/cloning solution (and NOT a backup solution) and if it copies ONLY used sectors it is NOT "forensically sound" *anything* that copies files is a file based solution and a backup app (and NOT an imaging or cloning solution) Cloning/imaging partitions or volumes without saving ALSO the MBR DATA (including Disk Signature AND partition/volume offset - if primary - or also EPBR's DATA if Logical) is "looking for troubles". As often happens, I lied as there is a third approach (mixed mode ): http://www.xxclone.com/ http://www.xxclone.com/itheory.htm (which obviously, not being sector based, is NOT "forensically sound") jaclaz

Yes. http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html Mind you that having NO backup of ANY data that you value is "pure folly" or "looking for trouble", so don't ever quote me telling you to use this approach WITHOUT a backup. Easeus Partition Master (Freeware Home Edition): http://www.partition-tool.com/download.htm should be able to do it (easily): http://www.partition-tool.com/easeus-partition-manager/comparison.html Otherwise follow this other route here (OPTION FOUR): http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/26829-convert-dynamic-disk-basic-disk.html A similar approach can be used by using TESTDISK, or more generally backing up the MBR, and then restoring it replacing the partition ID 42 with 07. http://mypkb.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/how-to-non-destructively-convert-dynamic-disks-to-basic-disks/ http://thelazyadmin.com/2007/01/converting-dynamic-disks-back-to-basic-disks/ But I have NO way to check, if - for any reason - you have a file spanning over two (or three ) of the "old basic volumes" or if there is some other condition (filesystem fragmentation and what not) that could prevent this manual approach from working , so a backup would be the really sensible thing to do. jaclaz

I have no idea what you mean by "disk host", but if you mean that you cannot move a NT/2K (or XP/2003 or later for that matters) from one disk to another disk, there is no problem WHATSOEVER, as long as you EITHER: replicate the disk signature (AND make sure that system partition offset is the same) OR: delete (offline) contents of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices in Registry File-based copying from one volume to another (on the same or another disk) is NO problem if the format is FAT16 or 32, AS LONG AS you copy files with some common sense: first NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI then all the rest (this is needed as NTLDR may have problems in accessing large LBA addresses), whilst doing filebased copy from one NTFS volume to another is PURE FOLLY unless you use tools like STRARC or ROBOCOPY that "keep" permiisions and what not. Actually in the good ol'times of NT4, the poorman's DEFRAG for FAT16 volumes was simply to copy the whole stuff to another disk or partiion (file-based) and the copy it back. jaclaz

Hard to say. It may depend from some differences in firmware, but I think it has to deal with the fact that you didn't actually "fix" the issue with it's "proper" cure, I mean, unlike the "classical" fix, which is the fix for a given illness, in your case the procedure worked as a side effect, very like the note in read-me-first:: Viewing the results and reports on this thread, the procedure is starting to look NOT as a "full reset" of the disk, meaning that it is not a "complete initialization", but rather a "partial one", or if you prefer something like a "warm boot" as opposed to a "cold" one. Just hypothesys, mind you, but it is possible that when the firmware gets into a LBA0 or BSY state a "flag" or "registry" or whatever is set in such a way that when the "m0,2,2,,,,,22" command is issued, the zone-reformat is NOT skipped, whilst when a completely different kind of problem happens (such as the ticking heads) this flag is reset to "skip zone re-format". Think at it just like the "dirty" bit that triggers (or triggers not) autoochk/chkdsk on NTFS volumes. About the time needed, there are reports ranging from a few seconds to several minutes, so that appears "normal" (within the limits of our partial knowledge/experience). To this you add that we don't know WHAT actually happens during this time as we don't actually know the actual status of the disk before the fix, expecially when the fix is used as a solution to a non-LBA0 and non-BSY issue. jaclaz

Yep , the idea of a "secured" machine is nice , but then an IODD/CDEMU/ZM-VE200 (or something the like) could be even "handier" (you even avoid to "burn" the .iso, just download it to the device). Of course the idea of the malware corrupting the .iso (or the burner) is purely theoretical, and it depends greatly on the kind of malware whether you would be able to download and burn the .iso properly on the "affected" machine. Something I do wonder is why these nice peeps of the QAntivirus firms do not provide a MD5 or SHA1 checksum of the .iso image (most probably the contents of the various .iso's are "self-authenticated", but having a fast and clean way to check whether the download was successful and being able to check quickly if the .iso had modifications seems to me like a handy feature). jaclaz

Check this ONLY seemingly unrelated thread: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=15138 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=15138&st=29 It sounds a lot like you need to use SUBINACL on (a copy of ) your source files. jaclaz

Well, you started it : If you were actualy aware of it (in the sense of not "being aware of it's existence only"), you would have known that you "build" a PE 3.x out of it, which of course assumes -at least theoretically - that you have a clean and fully working OS. However, JFYI : http://reboot.pro/14487/ Many anti-virus vendors provide a "boot CD" for free, another two examples: http://support.kaspersky.com/viruses/rescuedisk http://rescuedisk.kaspersky-labs.com/rescuedisk/updatable/ http://www.bitdefender.com/support/How-to-create-a-BitDefender-Rescue-CD-627.html http://download.bitdefender.com/rescue_cd/ but still there is the logic loophole, you need ANYWAY a computer capable of: accessing the Internet dowload page burn the .iso to CD ad this system should be - at least theoretically - "clean" from virii or malware Like (on a "non clean" system *somehow* still apparently working): dowload the .iso a virus corrupts it you burn the .iso the antivirus in it will be corrupted or won't work because of main .exe checksum loop to #1 AFTER having had access to a surely "clean" machine jaclaz

Have you checked this page: http://www.infocellar.com/winxp/chkdsk-and-autochk.htm and experimented what's on it? Possibly completly disabling Autochk and after a reboot re-enable it may do. Actual Registry info here: http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_abc.htm http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_c.htm http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_tweaks.htm (tweak #82) jaclaz

I can't see anyone running after you , you have all the time in the world and more. jaclaz

*any* PE with an antivirus of your choice. jaclaz

Maybe if you post some EXACT data about that modem something can be found. jaclaz

Well, the options were XP 32 bit and 7 32 bit. Do you really *want* or *need* a 64 bit OS to play some games? jaclaz

How EXACTLY are you making the image? From what you report it seems like you are doing an image of the "used sectors" ONLY of the hard disk. If this is the case, it is possible that the difference is in "cluster" occupation (size of file vs. size on disk) You will have to compare with something like the tools here: http://www.partitionsupport.com/utilities.htm Of course if you use DeepFreeze or similar software there are no changes whatsoever (that's exactly what that kind of software is supposed to do). You can also try running ERUNT to defrag the registry before taking an image though cannot say if it will change this behaviour. jaclaz