jaclaz

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=131079 jaclaz

Housings? We didn't have any fancy housings.... NO, sir, all we had was some shelves and a few fans .... .... and we liked it! jaclaz

If I may , using "radio" instead of "CheckBox" would be more "standard".... jaclaz

Workaround: http://www.onecomputerguy.com/desktop.htm#recyclebin Freeware app: http://techreckoner.com/add-usefull-options-to-right-click-menu-with-filemenu-tools/ http://www.lopesoft.com/en/fmtools/info.html jaclaz

You can then use some nicer "pure DOS" thingies, maybe this will do : http://www.ericphelps.com/batch/samples/addition.txt ************************************************************ ************************************************************ ************************************************************ Doing math in a batch file is a waste of time. There are no math functions. Luckily, all most people need to do is increment a counter of some sort. This can be done via string comparisons -- something that batch files CAN do. Here I show code which will increment a three digit number each time it is called. Looking at the code, you can see how easy it would be to extend it to any length. The number here is actually stored in the environment as three separate variables E0, E1, and E2. To refer to the entire number, you'd say this: %E2%%E1%%E0% ------------------------------------------------------------ @echo off :: Increments a three digit number :: Works by comparing each digit :: E2=hundreds, E1=tens, E0=ones if [%E2%]==[] set E2=0 if [%E1%]==[] set E1=0 if [%E0%]==[] set E0=0 :E0 if %E0%==9 goto E1 if %E0%==8 set E0=9 if %E0%==7 set E0=8 if %E0%==6 set E0=7 if %E0%==5 set E0=6 if %E0%==4 set E0=5 if %E0%==3 set E0=4 if %E0%==2 set E0=3 if %E0%==1 set E0=2 if %E0%==0 set E0=1 goto DONE :E1 set E0=0 if %E1%==9 goto E2 if %E1%==8 set E1=9 if %E1%==7 set E1=8 if %E1%==6 set E1=7 if %E1%==5 set E1=6 if %E1%==4 set E1=5 if %E1%==3 set E1=4 if %E1%==2 set E1=3 if %E1%==1 set E1=2 if %E1%==0 set E1=1 goto DONE :E2 set E1=0 if %E2%==9 set E2=0 if %E2%==8 set E2=9 if %E2%==7 set E2=8 if %E2%==6 set E2=7 if %E2%==5 set E2=6 if %E2%==4 set E2=5 if %E2%==3 set E2=4 if %E2%==2 set E2=3 if %E2%==1 set E2=2 if %E2%==0 set E2=1 goto DONE :DONE ************************************************************ ************************************************************ ************************************************************ All the above methods are standalone counters. They are generally called by other batch files whenever an incremented number is needed. Here is the opposite -- a counter batch file that calls a separate process batch file. The counter here is implemented as a series of loops. It will count from 000 to 999, calling a "process.bat" that we'll assume will have some use for the number! ------------------------------------------------------------ @echo off if [%1]==[] goto NONE if [%2]==[] goto ONE if [%3]==[] goto TWO goto THREE :NONE for %%x in (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) do call %0 %%x goto DONE :ONE for %%x in (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) do call %0 %1 %%x goto DONE :TWO for %%x in (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) do call %0 %1 %2 %%x goto DONE :THREE call PROCESS.BAT %1%2%3 goto DONE :DONE ------------------------------------------------------------ jaclaz

Kids today! Why, in my day .... http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1908 jaclaz

You are right : I don't believe you. To be more exact, I do believe you , but I won't believe that bigfoots were anywhere near being comparable in speed with SCSI. Unless I am mistaken at the time we were between SCSI Ultra wide and Ultra2 and Quantum ATLAS disks (the common size was 9.1 GB) simply blew away anything else (for a rather steeep price ). Additionally SCSI have traditionally used no (or very little) processor time, that at the time was VERY important for graphical or video work. jaclaz

The traditional way is to use the PING command. http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=26506&st=4 http://www.robvanderwoude.com/wait.php jaclaz

YES. I really cannot find what is the deceiving part in: In other words, ANYTHING marked "GND" or "GROUND" or "-" (minus) or having a black wire should be connected together. The idea is to create an equipotential "zero", this post by VideoRipper may help understanding the possible problem: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128807&st=2949 as well as point #6 of the read-me-first: If you have an idea or a more accurate wording to better convey this info, please post it (or PM me) and I'll modify the read-me-first. jaclaz

Well, if you look carefully with a small torch maybe you can find it.... Seriously, what do you mean you "lost" it? You have nowhere to connect the HD led on the case? You can (sort of) replace it by using a software: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896646.aspx http://www.dirtcellar.net/software.php For the SATA to IDE, whihc EXACT converter is it? (link if possible) most have an onboard LED, which you can replace with two pins for connecting the case led. Which EXACT PCI card is it? (link if possible) Most do have pins for the led. jaclaz

Then, the text must not be clear enough : Out of 5 4 (as two are mutually exclusive) points you listed 2 only jaclaz

And, again, the interface has NOTHING to do with reliability of a drive. Design, actual manufacturing methods (please read as lowering costs) and mainly EVER INCREASING DENSITY of the data are to be blamed. Most modern hard disks have on a SINGLE platter 500 Gb or more of data. Since form factor remained fixed, the surface where the recording is actually stored is the same of, say a 20 Gb hard disk of a few years ago. Tolerances, precision of movements, stability, etc, has to be at least ten to thirty times smaller. A misalignment 1/10th or 1/30th the size of the one that could barely cause a problem on an "oldish" drive now it's catastrophic. Anyone old enough to remember the "bigfoot" drives? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bigfoot_(hard_drive) http://palazzo.pro.br/hist/museu/bigfoot.htm To be able to handle 6 Gb they had 3 5.25" platters! jaclaz

Sure, that's exactly how it works. You go here: http://www.archive.org/index.php or here: http://www.archive.org/web/web.php and input in the text box near the "take me back" button the dead link and press the button. Then you need some fantasy, just as an example, try shortening the URL and adding a * (asterisk) at the end, like, say you want to find this: http://www.v72735.f2s.com/LetAssig/ you enter it in the search box and you get this: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.v72735.f2s.com/LetAssig/ from this you can explore and see if the page is complete, it has working links, etc. But you can also "widen" the search like: http://www.v72735.f2s.com/* http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.v72735.f2s.com/* (sometimes things may have a different name, or have a copy renamed, you never know) jaclaz

Grounding? Point #7 of read-me-first: jaclaz

WHO named my name vainly? (the actual guy who knows about this kind of things is cdob ) Bootable: "C:\whatever\path\to\mkisofs.exe" -v -iso-level 4 -l -D -d -J -joliet-long -r -volid "Title for Bootable" -A MKISOFS -sysid "Win32" -b bootsect.bin -no-emul-boot -boot-load-size 4 -allow-multidot -hide bootsect.bin -hide boot.catalog -o "whatever.iso" "c:\hic\sunt\leones\XP" As I see it: -relaxed-filenames has no meaning if -iso-level 4 and -J -joliet-long are set. -duplicates-once ONLY has a meaning if making a multi-something-in-one AND if the version of mkisofs.exe supports them AFAIK if you "hide" you also "hide-joliet" the -r or -R adds Rockridge, the first with no special permission and the second with "elevated" root ones Data: "C:\whatever\path\to\mkisofs.exe" -v -iso-level 4 -l -D -d -J -joliet-long -r -volid "Title for Data" -A MKISOFS -sysid "Win32" -allow-multidot -o "whatever.iso" "c:\no\not_here\rather\there\or\better\elsewhere" Please understand that -iso-level 4 is LATER than MSCDEX.EXE, so you will have problems in DOS unless you use SHSUCDX instead. A setting of -iso-level 3 should be "enough" for the intended target. jaclaz

Well, not exactly . You don't format the entire hard drive. You either delete (and create) partitions on it or format partitions. If you just deleted one or more partitions AND NOT already overwrote the space they occupied they may still be recoverable. If you just formatted one or more partitions under up to XP/2003 AND NOT already overwrote the space they occupied they may still be recoverable. If you just formatted one or more partitions under Vista or 7 you most probably overwrote everything with 00's and they are gone for good. jaclaz

Use an USB adapter, to be plugged AFTER the OS has booted. jaclaz

WHAT is the "pk"? jaclaz

What is the difficult part? http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://unattended.solta.ru/exectools.7z http://web.archive.org/web/20070223045218/http://unattended.solta.ru/exectools.7z jaclaz

Good , another happy bunny in the basket : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128727&st=10 Yep, that's the idea. It's optional, but it won't do any harm. jaclaz

Yep, another slip of the finger , 1023 is of course right, the only things to be changed are the red numbers with the bolded italics ones. You may need to re-boot to see the effect. Anyway re-check the MBR with Tiny Hexer and PTview (just in case). jaclaz

Yep slip of the fingers. The good news are that "1221" and "1,465,145,343" do match (as well as "0" and "1,465,144,064") In the bootsectors: "Sectors before" are 20,484,096 "Total Sectors" are 1,444,661,247 (+1 outside the actual filesystem: the backup bootsector) 20,484,096+1,444,661,247=1,465,145,343 Now all that it should be needed is to use a partition editor, like PTEDIT32 or beeblebrox, or maybe this one (just found): http://www.dtidata.com/ntfs_partition_repair.htm and change the values: 07-80-1023-254-63-1024-254-63-20482875-1444661190 to 07-80-1023-254-63-1024-254-63-20484096-1444661248 Please note that the current first sectors of the "current broken" partition will remain untouched but will be in a "no-man's-land" between first and second partition, and that the sector 1,465,144,064 will remain - unindexed - inside the partition. Maybe, once hopefully everything has gone back to normality, it would be a good idea to fill them with 00's, just to avoid confusion should there be any future occasions of attempting recovery. Obviously, crossing fingers, holding a rabbit foot and the like when editing the MBR is advised... jaclaz

No joy. Try searching the same EB52904E54465320 starting form first sectors of partition. It is very possible that the "shift" is bigger than expected. If you find it, post that sector (and it's position). Good The one on 1,465,144,064 should be the "current" one (backup bootsector of "current" partition). The one on 1,465,145,343 might be the "original" one (backup bootsector of "original" partition), which should mean that (if the actual partition size is exactly the same) that the shift is of 1,465,145,343-1,465,144,064=279 sectors and not of the 128-63=65 sectors I guessed. Post these two sectors. jaclaz

Good. NO, it seems like we've found the actual thing. Date is 11/10/2008. Now we have to find out how to fix the thingy. If everything is like I presume, the actual original bootsector is at LBA 20482940, to check, post first 200 sectors of the partition. From the original bootsector we should be able to understand if not only the start position but also the end position was changed. The other check is to (opening the \\.\PhysicalDrive and NOT the partition) to go near the end of the partition, say sector 1,465,140,000 and from it start searching for the backup bootsector, in search use hex string EB52904E54465320. I need the sector number where you find it. With the new (please read old ) verified addresses it should be just a matter of changing a couple of numbers in the MBR. jaclaz

Yep , keep 'em coming, the ones you just posted seem completely unlike "them". There is a possibility that has just come to my mind. If the drive was originally partitioned by Vista or Windows 7, it might have had a "wrong" (from the old "standard" view-point) sector alignment. I.e. it could have been aligned to the "cluster size" instead of on cylinder border. Just a guess, but if the recovery partition was made with an older OS, it would have had the "normal" 0/1/1 start and n/254/63 end (in this case 1023/254/63 .i.e. "a suffusion of yellow" since recovery partition is bigger than the CHS limit), and your recovery partition does have this values. Then comes into play a "standard" Vista or 7 that aligns partitions differently. A "normal" first partition starts at 0/1/1 and ends at n/254/63. The same if created on an unpatched NT 6/7 will start on different address, aligned with 128 sectors before: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=21186 most probably 0/2/3 but normally end on border, like m/254/63, see here for an example: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=119963&st=17 Cannot say if non-first partitions would be as well aligned like that, but if they are, then it is possible that the "actual partition" starts not at 20482875 LBA, but rather at 20482875-63+128=20482940. Then TESTDISK "thought" that partitions were bounded to cylinder borders and when you told it to create the bootsector, it re-created the bootsector in the "wrong" place, also adjusting the partitioning data. If this is the case, the $MFT should be at sector 6291456-63+128=6291521 This would make sense IF you did not (high probability ) go into "Options" and changed "Cylinder Boundary" from the default "Yes" to "No" and the "Allow partial last cylinder" from the default "No" into "Yes". I do know that the above seems complex and confusing (actually it is complex and confusing ). jaclaz