jaclaz

Well, AFAIK not even Windows 98 has been updated recently.... Maybe you can try using a launcher with process priority features, like this one (examples): Myrun http://ex-boroda.chat.ru/english.html ATM http://www.simtel.net/product/view/id/12339 Cannot say if it can work.... jaclaz

Possibly yes , but the point you seem like missing is HOW the NTLDR/BOOT.INI way of booting Windows 9x works. In order to boot Win9x NTLDR chainloads a COPY of your partition bootsector (the "original" one installed by Win9x to the PBR and invoking IO.SYS). If needed bootpart can RE-CREATE that bootsector copy. The XP Repair AFAICR, won't. In a nutshell, how your 9x boots: After Win9x install: BIOS->PBR (of Win9x)->IO.SYS After 2K install: BIOS->PBR (of Win2K)->NTLDR (of Win2K)->BOOT.INI (of Win2K, with 2 entries, 1 for Win9x)->bootsect.dos->IO.SYS After XP install: BIOS->PBR (of WinXP)->NTLDR (of WinXP)->BOOT.INI (of WinXP, with 3 entries, 1 for Win9x)->bootsect.dos->IO.SYS What the repair fixboot would do would simply to re-write the PBR (and possibly check that in BOOT.INI there is an entry for the XP install). This is perfectly equivalent to running bootpart WINXP BOOT: C: , this will allow to boot in XP.(and you don't need the XP CD or to boot from CD) The difference is that if, for any reason, the bootsect.dos is invalid, or has been deleted, you won't be able to boot Win9x. With bootpart you can also, once booted in XP or 2K, recreate the bootsect.dos copy of the Win9x PBR. jaclaz

VERY nice. Some details about the uncompressed BOOTMGR and if a given version is needed may be of help so that other people can experiment with your findings..... Just for the record, your post is on sanbarrow's "new" board http://forum.sanbarrow.com/index.php but previous posts/topics are on the "old" board here : http://sanbarrow.com/phpBB2/index.php jaclaz

It depends on HOW you access the disk. If you access the \\.\PhysicalDrive: the MBR is at LBA 0 (first sector) the PBR is at LBA 2048 the MFT should be at 786432x8+2048=6293504 If you access the LogicalDrive or Volume: the MBR is NOT available the PBR or bootsector is at LBA 0 (first sector) the MFT should be at 786432x8=6291456 It's years I don't use WinHex, and I am not familiar with it, but if it uses absolute byte addressing: 0C000000=201326592 201326592/512=393216 So it is NOT: Now, be nice. Get Tinyhexer. Open the \\.\PhysicalDrive: File->Disk->Open Drive You will get to sector 0 or MBR. Now: File->Disk->Goto Sector/Position 6293504 Select the sector. Edit->Copy. Edit->Paste to new Save the file, zip it and attach it to your next post. Do the same for sector 63999999x8+2048=512002040 (which according to the PBR is your $MFTmirr) If you access the Logicaldrive you DO NOT have the 2048 sectors before, thus addresses are: 786432x8=6291456 and 63999999x8=511999992 jaclaz

Yep, but you really should read the second thread, which is about a situation VERY similar to yours, and does contains some info that may be of use to you. The actual $MFT, according to your PBR/bootscetor is on cluster 786432 (normal for a NTFS volume). You have 8 sectors clusters (again normal) From BOTH your MBR and PBR the partition starts at LBA 2048. 786432x8+2048=6293504 <- This is where your $MFT should actually begin. Can you check it? jaclaz

...which corrupted the MBR. It's a binary file, you cannot copy and paste or save from a text editor! Read the file with hdhacker. Save the fie with hdhacker (naming it like "MBRdisk0.bin") DO NOT OPEN it with notepad ir ANY other text editor, actually DO NOT open it. Compress MBRdisk0.bin to MBRdisk0.zip. Attach MBRdisk0.zip. jaclaz

With all due respect for the opinions of the members who posted , this seems not a poll like: or Multibooter, for reasons that should not be up to debate, wants to defragment under Windows 98, his question seems like clear enough to me. ...and I thought mine was not an answer .... I guess Multibooter is old and experienced enough a member to know what he is asking for and he most probably has a reason to ask this (and not another question).... jaclaz

Well, NO. IF "drive E:" is hidden, it doesn't get a drive letter, hence it is NOT "drive E:" (maybe it is "third partition" ) You may want to try using showdrive.exe or mountstorePE, reference here: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10169&hl= Of course NOT, batch files are only written in order to make sure that keyboard keys are not stuck, that's why a lot if % and &'s are used in them. Sure , a well written batch does work (as well as anything well written in any scripting or programming language), you can shoot yourself in the foot in several ways : http://www.kirchwitz.de/~amk/shoot_foot.shtml You'd better start a new thread about the batch here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/66-programming-c-delphi-vbvbs-cmdbatch-etc/ jaclaz

The disk having been formatted by Vista originally may cause a misalignment (of whole sectors and not of the 16 bytes) that can lead to problems if used under XP. The initial part was "FORGET (temporarily) the MFT"! Hdhacker is straightforward. You want to select first sector of the PhysicalDrive (\\.\PhysicalDrive0 is first disk, \\.\PhysicalDrive1 second, etc.) and press "Read sector from disk", then press "Save sector to File" and save it - this is the MBR. Repeat with first sector of the Logicaldrive - this is the PBR or bootsector. Then get ANY compression utility compatible with the ZIP format and use it, 7-zip is advised, but virtually anything can do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Zip http://www.its.ipfw.edu/training/howto/7_Zip_EncryptionProcess.pdf The compression is needed for two reasons (in this case NOT to save a few bytes, it is likely that the resulting archive will be bigger than original data): .zip is an extension that is allowed for attachment on the board if there is any corruption in the upload or download, the archive won't verify Yep but it's not a secret: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8734 (had you actually READ the threads I pointed you to, you would ALREADY know that) I guess I am allowed to express some perplexities on your tastes when it comes to excitement? What about this, then: http://web.archive.org/web/20080331030514/http://www.somethingawful.com/fakesa/fetish/ jaclaz

If you wish to re-install (in the case that fixing the Win98 is not possible) Reinstall Windows 98 "normally". Boot to command line DOS. Run bootpart (of course you will need to download it and have it ready somewhere reachable by the DOS, like in C:\bootpart\): http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm to recreate the bootsector AND write it to the PBR like: Bootpart WINXP BOOT:C: More details here: http://www.winimage.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=276 Please note how you need to preserve these files currently on your C:\ partition: NTLDR NTDETECT.COM BOOT.INI (or, if you need to re-format the C:\ partition, you need to copy them back there from a backup) jaclaz

@All this topic comes split from here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128092&st=1219 Another good reason to stay clear of it. @QMEDLAM Are the chkdsk results coming from it run "normally" or in "safe mode"? If not the latter, try running it in "safe mode", at first as: and then (if it doesn't hang) as and then (if it hangs) as: Is it just the I:\ partition that gives you problems ar also the others (where chkdsk worked allright) ? jaclaz

This is normal. In a nutshell if you install Windows 7 on a non-partitioned drive it will creatre it's own hidden/reserved/system partition (now 100 Mb, was 200 Mb in earlier beta), if you install it on a pre-partitioned hard disk it will behave "normally", WITHOUT creating that partition. @robertplant Please make a copy of your MBR, compress it in a .zip file and post it as attachment. You can use HDhacker: http://dimio.altervista.org/eng/ You want to save first sector of your first PhysicalDrive (\\.\PhysicalDrive0), Read sector from disk/Save sector to File. jaclaz

Well, no. You attached a screenshot of something. (but it's OK, you got the "right" sectors ) I would like to have the actual files. Check the given threads, the use of Hdhacker is illustrated, but you can use Winhex allright, just select the sector (all 512 bytes of it) for the MBR and for the PBR and copy/paste them to two new files, then Zip the two files into an archive and post the compressed archive. The only thing I can say without having the actual files and without manually copying the binary values I can say is that the NTFS partition was created under Vista or 7 (as the PBR invokes BOOTMGR). jaclaz

But the partition table in the MBR Kahlil88 has a single visible partition, set Active. (and a Dell "service partition" hidden and NOT active) @kahlil88 When you have finished, can you try running CHKDSK again and report? jaclaz

Sure it is possible. Basically you re-install the Windows 98 than you need to "fix" the 2K/XP booting. Depending on which bootmanager you use and how the partitions are setup and if the actual "active" or "boot" primary partition needs to be reformatted or not, I could give you some hints on how to do it. Post some more details on how the Operating Systems were setup, to which partition(s) they were installed, which bootmanager are you using (possibly the XP NTLDR+BOOT.INI+NTDETECT.COM, but I want to make sure), etc.. jaclaz

Before using a disk/hex editor I would rather try more suitable programs. Forget for a moment what you found and the 16 byte shift. Things are usually much more complex than what you are assuming. Can you simply get the MBR and bootsector with dsfo or hdhacker of the problematic partition and post them? Check these two threads, to get an idea of the kind of data you should provide and of the tools that you will need to use, and how to use them: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=141687 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=145574 Is the "other" partition allright? Have you tried simply running CHLDSK on the partition with NO parameter BUT the drive letter? Or the partition fails to get assigned a drive letter? jaclaz

NOT an answer. But something worth a look (promising): http://sourceforge.net/projects/filesystemd/ And some semi-random hints: The ME defrag is said to be much better than Win98 one. PowerDefrag may help in managing "standard" defrag: http://www.mdgx.com/98-3.htm Among Commercial tools, AFAICR, the Vopt is the only one that is still updated ansd works on 9x: http://www.vopt.com/index.html http://www.vopt.com/nudownload.htm jaclaz

Which confirms that you are not looking for a plain technical examination of a problem, but rather for someone to confirm your opinion. What do you expect by a guy that (right or wrong ) made a career overhyping security flaws? Personally, I prefer reading of nanoprobes: http://web.archive.org/web/20060215171504/blog.netwarriors.org/articles/2003/11/11/shieldsup-analyzed here : http://www.startrek.com/database_article/nanoprobes But hey, the motto is really cool: http://www.grc.com/np/np.htm NO, personally i would WRITE the crack. I would be curious about which could be a "slightly more reputable source" for a crack. Have you got a list of reputable game crackers? Exactly. You do sound a bit "lazy" and "tight-handed". Comeon, it's your mom , she deserves the best, even if you have to fork from a few bucks to buy her a few ORIGINAL games. jaclaz

Again, you are asking on a technical board for technical advice. Technical advice cannot be given if not "technically". Post the actual files to VirusTotal and post here the links to the results. With them, you can have a guess (probably educated , but still a guess) of the actual probabilities those files are "false" or "true" positive. In any case, if you want to prove your point, you need to "spend your time" analyzing the specific files. Unlike in democracy, "votes" don't count much in the technical field, something is usually either True or False, binary 0/1, On/Off, even if from now on 3,000 members will post saying that those files are dangerous, their would be an undocumented opinion, as well the one if another 3,000 ones wil post saying that those files are perfectly safe. JFYI: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=141734 We do know that the mentioned file is "safe", and it has been proved to be safe by several AV vendors, but after a currently 8 months long "struggle", we are still at 13/43: http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=aa68d27eeff208672bd0494a37ddf6f662135a965bb3387378cf43d605e54671-1288757982 I presume that WAREZ releasers do not care that much to convince the AV firms that their released soft is clean, even if - strangely - it is. Are you saying publicly that you have an immoral sister? In normal family relationships this usually turns out to be REALLY dangerous... jaclaz

A "normal" PCB swap won't work with that drive, if you exchange the ROM properly (NOT easy on a 2.5" disk) it may. But you have no way to know in advance, from what you describe it coud well be a sticky bearing that caused the motor to overheat, and you may even have a "good" PCB and a dead motor. In any case good luck , you cannot do anything else but try a PCB swap removing the old chip from the dead drive and soldering it on the new PCB. jaclaz

Well, NO, you want us to say that technically your choice is wise and your sister's is not. But this is not the case. 3/43 (without knowing WHICH AV marks them on VirusTotal) is NOWHERE near being a sign that those files actually contain a Virus of ANY kind. All it means is that checking throroughly those files would be wise, but in actual practice, and depending greatly on the specific files and on the specific AV's that detect them, probabilities are much greater that they are false positives then that they actually contain a virus or malware. The files may be affected by a Virus, but you need to actually PROVE this by ANALYZING them, your "specific" argument about VirusTotal and 3/43 - as is - is moot. The "general" problem is elsewhere. Your sister, and consequently your mom, are doing an illegal activity - no matter if limited to a handful of pirated games. What you should really do is instead of trying to prove on semi-statistical basis (with no grounds in this particular case) that using WAREZ is wrong because they contain virus, convince them that using WAREZ is wrong from a moral and legal standpoint and should not be used. Go out, work some more, get a few extra bucks, BUY the games your mom likes to play, give them ORIGINAL to her as a present. jaclaz

Sure, the files are allright. The contents may not. It seems like there is (I would say "was") a DELL recovery partition (partition ID "DE") 96327 sectors in size (i.e. 96327x512=49319424 bytes). But it is missing the corresponding "DB" one. It seems to me "strange" that such a small "service" partition exists without the "big" one. The CHS and LBA seem like "balanced", but the partitioning does not respect Cylinder boundaries, which on some BIOSes may cause a problem. (edited: no, the boundaries are respected also) Definitely by doing all you did to that laptop you have replaced the "peculiar" Dell MBR with the ""standard" 2K/XP one, it is possible that the original Dell one could work with the broken boundary and the standard XP MBR doesn't. (edited: but it is higly improbable) Post some info on the actual hardware, maybe there is a fix on the manufacturer0s site (Dell), there are several types/versions of those partitions: http://www.goodells.net/dellrestore/ Have you checked to e actual filesystem (with CHKDSK)? jaclaz

You don't "scan" anything with HDhacker , you use it to make a copy of the MBR and of the PBR and you post them. Under Linux you can use dd allright for this. (but since you think that hex code is "garbage" I doubt that you are familiar with dd usage ) jaclaz

Good luck on your wild goose chase. Yes. http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html See here : http://tinyurl.com/2ccy9yx jaclaz

Actually NO. "no active partition" should return an "explicit" error, like the ones actually embedded in MBR or PBR: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=121391&st=25 or one coming from BIOS. jaclaz