jaclaz

The point that I evidently completely fail to explain is that THIS THREAD is for 7200.11 ONLY, and ONLY for those affected by the LBA0 or BSY state. Don't you think that otherwise it could have been titled: Five simple steps : Start a NEW thread, here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/169-hard-drive-and-removable-media-issues/ Title it meaningfully DON'T EVER use HDD regenerator (if the scope is recovering DATA) STOP (for the moment ) fiddling with those drives Post detailing ALL the steps you ALREADY took jaclaz

You mean no one is interested at it? jaclaz

No you didn't, but from what you wrote on post #8 you seem to infer that is a "peculiar kind of install". It is not: it is an image of the factory status of the install, thus this: makes no sense. No winnt.sif is used since there is no actual "new install". jaclaz

Question: Guess why there is a read-me-first? Answer: To avoid having to reply to the SAME questions asked n times before (and also answered n times before) Please READ it: EXPECIALLY ponts #1 and #2 jaclaz

Yes, and no, of course it can, but you need to mount the hive on local Registry. This method needs not this intermediate step. The advantage is that the paths to keys and values are the same, no matter if local or off-line. The "right" way IMHO still remains this one: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?&showtopic=7681 but noone is interested at it. jaclaz

You can feed mkisofs with a "dummy" bootsector and then "dd" the real one from the spcmdcon.sys to the .iso directly. This can be done with programs like dsfi (part of the DSFOK toolkit): http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/freeware/ but most probably it can be done from VBS too. jaclaz

Be warned that where it comes to defragmentation needs and defragmentation programs, spirits tend to heat up easily. Still nothing compared to FAT32 vs. NTFS or Win9x vs. NT/2K/XP, but close. I was never able to find any scientifically sound report or study on the matter, let alone proper comparisons: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=18603&st=520 Anyway, for all it matters in practice, a good defragging program might show progress in the form of a virtual girl undressing , it's a form of graphical representation as good as any other. A defragging program I would like to see is one that could be actually told what to do, not unlike the "sort" feature of mkisofs: http://www.911cd.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8053 Ultradefrag is somewhat going in this direction: http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/ but it is, as I see it, still far from the "granularity" I would like. jaclaz

Also, should you need to do it on an off-line Registry: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=11212 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=11312 jaclaz

What SURELY happens is that your drive WILL NOT come back to life. Additionally you risk that EVEN the now working drive WILL NEVER come back to life. The procedure called in jargon "PCB SWAP" can work: easily on drives that have NO specific calibration/setup data (very, very old ones) anyway on drives that have calibration/setup data in a eeprom (BUT you need to either backup and restore the eeprom or physically de-solder it form the old PCB and re-solder it on the "new" PCB) It CANNOT work on drives where calibration/setup data is stored on the actual hard disk reserved sectors, such as the 7200.11. Compare with (what you could have found if searching for the right keywords): http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128807&st=1821 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128807&st=2173 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128807&st=2240 And with: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=145290 Basically, every few tens posts comes a new guy thinking that the rather complex procedure this thread is about can be bypassed easily with a plain PCB SWAP, and someone, usually yours truly , has to convince him that it won't work.... So, NO, you need to use this procedure, there are no known workarounds. Start from here: feel free to ask for help should something be not clear. 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