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

The blinking cursor is typical of: wrong data in bootsector (PBR) conflicting CHS vs. LBA (that also causes the above) on some BIOSes The "loading PBR for descriptor" is NOT a message in standard MBR (meaning NOT a standard 2K/XP one), it should mean that original user has installed a "custom" MBR of some kind, like a bootmanager of something like it. The problem is usually fixable but I will need to see BOTH the MBR and the PBR of the boot partition. HDhacker is handy to make such images: http://dimio.altervista.org/eng/ See here for a quick howto for HDhacker use: jaclaz

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/l/life-stinks-script-transcript-brooks.html You are welcome. jaclaz

JFYI there is NOT EVEN any consensus about the actual utility of having a pagefile on modern hardware and big amounts of RAM and, if yes, how big it should be AND if it should be "fixed sized" or "windows managed". It usually turns out in a FAT32 vs. NTFS, Mickey Mouse vs. Dracula, Godzilla vs. King Kong kind of discussion.... (and yes, if you really want to know, IMNSHO the good ol'reptile can kick a§§ of the grown monkey with BOTH hands tied behind it's back ) jaclaz

NO. The NIC itself has "nothing" to do with PXE booting. "OLD" motherboards (that had NO integrated NIC/LAN card) used ISA (very old) or PCI LAN cards or NIC's. These cards can have: NO ROM on board (and no socket on it) NO ROM on board (BUT a socket on it) a PXE ROM on it Boards of type #2 and #3 operate with a mechanism (like SCSI cards usually do) called BIOS extension or "expansion ROM": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS#BIOS_boot_specification In practice the BIOS reads the whatever is in the ROM and "appends" it to the booting options. If the ROM contains PXE code, you have PXE booting added. "New" motherboards have the PXE code already in the main BIOS. But the ROM can contain also "something" else, as said. The used ROM's are (rare or old) actual ROM chips, or EPROM (old) or EEPROMs (new). The general idea is (in order of difficulty): if you have a motherboard with integrated LAN and PXE, OK if you have a motherboard without integrated LAN, BUT with a NIC with a PXE ROM, OK if you have a motherboard without integrated LAN, BUT with a NIC without a PXE ROM BUT with a socket for it, you can TEST with a floppy or CD, then "burn" the PXE code to an EPROM or EEPROM chip if you have a motherboard without integrated LAN, AND a NIC without a PXE ROM BUT without a socket for it, you can use a a floppy or CD In other words: provided that you have enough money to buy a NIC complete with PXE ROM, you can add PXE booting to *any* desktop. failing that, if you have a NIC with a ROM socket, and an EPROM or EEPROM (and you may also need a programmer for them) and have enough time to do the DIY job, you can test the PXE booting through floppy or CD and then burn the ROM, thus PXE booting to *any* desktop. if you have no money and a NIC without ROM socket, you are stuck to using a floppy or CD all the times (an interesting alternative being using grub4dos or syslinux on the internal har ddisk, either to directly PXE boot or to map a floppy or CD image) Just as an example, these: http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=763637&CatId=200 http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3981752&CatId=200 are NIC's with a socket These ones: http://argontechnology.com/pci-fast-ethernet-10100mb.html http://argontechnology.com/pci-gigabit-ethernet.html include the ROM jaclaz

Well, not really the "scope" of a "Install Windows from USB" forum However, see if this fits: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=11808 (unresolved/unfinalized, AFAICU) But seemingly the new version hasn't any problem as a "direct" boot: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=12380 Putting it in a multi-boot something seems like not having been documented, though you can probably work out a suitable way by mimicking the steps taken here: http://chromeos.hexxeh.net/wiki/doku.php?id=multiboot jaclaz

It sounds like a perfectly working hard disk that has serious partitioning/filesystem issues. Just open Disk Management, take a snapshot of it and post the screenshot. Open a command prompt and try running in it CHKDSK (without ANY command parameter BUT the drive letter) example if the three partitions on that disk are E:\ F:\ and G:\ try running: CHKDSK E:\ repeat with F: and G: Post what chkdsk says. Please also, start a NEW THREAD about your issue, it seems like having nothing to do with this thread scope. jaclaz

Would you accept the opinion of a (hopefully) credible amateur? VirusTotal is a tool, like an antivirus or ANY other tool. It's how you use it that makes the difference. If a single (or two) antivirus programs do not detect Anything on a given file it DOES NOT mean that it is clean. If VirusTotal has something like 4/43 AND the 4 out of the 43 are such well reputed - ahem - antivirus programs such as (example ): Kingsoft Norman Panda McAfee http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/false-alarm-tests (mind you the listed above are the WORST possible AV solution when it comes to false positives, but the may have other features superior to other compatitors) it DOES NOT mean that the file is infected. (actually it means that it is highly probable that the file is NOT infected) All such tools can give you very easily "false positives" and "false negatives". It is only up to you (or whoever is actually "in charge" of the security of a set of PC's) to believe one or the other report and take - or fail to take - further initiatives in order to ascertain the reliability of the specific "warning" or of the complete lack of such a "warning". Expecially when we are talking about heuristic detection, results are very often "a suffusion of yellow": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaheuristic And detection of a given malware may be different based on the "kind" of such malware, example: http://research.zscaler.com/2010/09/best-and-worst-antivirus-against-fake.html jaclaz

IF there is something, it is likely to come out of blackwingcat's sleeve , see if this applies to your hardware: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=131421 @wela NO need to put down another member by stating how difficult is something that you seemingly don't know a solution for. jaclaz

univibe or univbe? YES/YES. http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html UNIVBE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniVBE http://www.dosdriver.de/graph.php jaclaz