jaclaz

Canot say if it counts an indirect bug report or as an idea/suggestion: http://tinyapps.org/blog/windows/201004070600_unpack_extract_msi_files.html It seems like these Debugging Tools for Windows cannot be extracted with UniExtract but can with the tool from jsware: http://www.jsware.net/jsware/msicode.php5#unplin jaclaz

I am not sure to have understood WHEN exactly the freezing happens. Can you try to beeter describe what hapens when booting the Win9x? I mean if it's some kind of "initial stage" of booting, it may be possible to work aound booting an image through grub4dos or similar. Also something you may want to try (HIGLY experimental) is the 9x version of UNIATA: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2384 jaclaz

Hmmm. Really all? When does the 0x0000007b happens? Dring install or at first reboot? (or in other words when it is bootng from USB or when it attempts booting from the IDE drive?) What about PLoP? WHICH method are you using? With WHICH settings/choices? jaclaz

Well NO. HP fails to say explicitly that it is for Windows 7, which is a different thing from what you seem like fearing, i.e. that the HP26 is incompatible with Windows 7. I guess we are talking of this one: http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/softwareDownloadIndex?softwareitem=pv-68339-3&lc=en&dlc=en&cc=us〈=en&os=2100&product=3740339 Now, use some logic. IF it was that this firmware is incompatible with Windows 7, it would mean that you couldn't migrate from any of the previous OS to Windows 7 - a bit hard to believe . (judging from the way Windows 7 is "pushed", MS would sue HP immediately ) If you check the HP ftp site: ftp://ftp.hp.com/pub/softlib/software10/COL27451/pv-68339-1/ you will see that the firmware file has a date of: 06/05/2009 Now, having Windows 7 been released on 22nd July 2009, it should mean that the HP guys had not a crystal ball capable of forecasting the furture over a larger than two months span. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7 http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/windows7/archive/2009/07/22/windows-7-has-been-released-to-manufacturing.aspx However rest assured, drive firmware is OS agnostic, and since the actual updating is done from a DOS based .iso there wouldn't be problems with compatibility during the update either. In case of problems with the self extracting exe: http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Hardware/HP-firmware-update-for-Seagate-drive-fails-sp40966-exe-upgrades/m-p/55596 use 7-zip to extract the contents and burn the .iso manually. jaclaz

@puntoMX JFYI: http://www.wikihow.com/Convert-a-Computer-ATX-Power-Supply-to-a-Lab-Power-Supply http://web2.murraystate.edu/andy.batts/ps/powersupply.htm Guess why a pre-load resistor is used? Basically modern PSU's have an auto-switching pre-load, older ones DO NOT have it. See here: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5680951/tm.htm (actually PSU testers do usually have a resistor for load inside) jaclaz

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_abstraction_layer http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architettura_Windows_NT The translation with "Livello di astrazione dell'Hardware" is a bit deceiving. The thing is not a "level" (livello) it is a layer (strato). It is a Layer that "insulates" the OS from the actual hardware. It would sound in Italian something like "strato di separazione hardware", or "hardware separation layer" the good MS guys didn't ever attempt to translate it AFAIK/AFAICR: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/299340/it Here is a nice scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Windows_NT You have to imagine it like a sheet of some insulating material that makes waterproof something that is below, obviously there are "holes" in it (the drivers) connecting what is under (the hardware) with what is over it (the OS). jaclaz

Good. That should mean that you have "version B" of the Recovery disc making program, and thus it should be reset by removing them. Obviously keep on the safe side and don't delete them at first try, rather rename or move them somewhere else, you never know. jaclaz

Please take note that some older/cheaper PSU did/do not handle correctly being powered on without an even minimal amount of power being drawn from the 5V or 12V lines (or both). The paper clip is of course valid for ATX PSU ONLYand NOT for AT, since you mentioned having some "vintage" machines, be aware of the problems that you may find. With all due respect for the advice given before, DO NOT power on a PSU NOT connected to something, of be ready and VERY quick in switching it off if needed (typically they would make a whistling sound) if you keep them powered on and they "whistle" they will simply BLOW in a matter of several seconds. Mind you I am not trying to put you down or scare you, and I am not saying that your PSU will be one of those, but it may be. The "old school" trick was to use a car tail lamp, 5W+21W: Measuring the voltage of a "disconnected" switching power supply may anyway give "false" results, I've seen too many seemingly good PSU's that simply failed to work when some power was drawn from them to trust anyone, in any sense, a test of a PSU not connected to "anything" may be a waste of time. For the record, you might want to notice how both of us advised you to buy a digital multimeter and you ended up buying an analog one. Actually analog ones ARE better IMHO, though they are somewhat more difficult to be operated "properly". Since you all were missing a nice link , here it is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax Finding the reason why there is a mirroring surface on the scale is left as an exercise to the reader. jaclaz

NO. NT is named after New Technology EXACTLY because starting from 3.1/3.51 it changed the way it accessed ANY device by using UNLIKE DOS/Win9x/Me a structure based on a "HAL" or "Hardware Abstraction Layer". I.e. whilst DOS and consequently up to a certain point Win9x/Me "trust" BIOS, NT based operating systems, including NT 4.00 re-scan the system and use specific drivers. Original NT 4.00 had a limit (for a bootable volume) set at 8 Gb. Remember that NT 4.00 ONLY understands FAT16 and an EARLY version of NTFS. The problem is in ATAPI.SYS, here is a rather complete page on the available workarounds: http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/bigdisk.htm IF UNIATA supports the board, good: http://alter.org.ua/soft/win/uni_ata/ otherwise I guess that you can only use the previous mentioned workaround. WARNING: You need at least SP3 to have (partial) compatibility with the Win2K (and later versions of NTFS. jaclaz

No, unless there is a file with a "same" name. No, you need to change settings manually. Additionally, since the "second" drive won't have the same disk signature as the "first" one, you will need to edit the Registry (the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices key) to allow correct partition enumeration. Additionally yet, it is possible that due to the size of the partitions (unknown) the system bootloader files may get beyond reach of the bootsector. I don't think that xxclone will do it for you, but cannot say, I pointed you to it only as an example of the "non-standard" approach that you need because you want to do a "non-standard" thing. jaclaz

Made out of WHAT? I need to have some info AT LEAST on: WHAT was the source. HOW the two images were created (meaning the addresses of the two chunks - if coming from the same drive) Operating system you are using/have access to See if this better conveys the idea: http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html Right now we are at the "I'm ill, doctor. Help!" stage. @videoripper The command you posted - like the similar equivalent ways under windows - only make sense if you have an "intact" image of a whole drive or single partition, otherwise you will have just a bunch of binary data without sense. IF the image is actually presumed to be the "complete" image of a drive, it makes sense ANYWAY, in ANY OS, to have a look at it in TESTDISK before anything else: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk jaclaz

True. True (in your known words). False (partially). The "right" place is the 911CD Forum where the method was originally developed . Here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=14181&hl= http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=21309&hl= "Automated" method: http://www.usboot.org/tiki-index.php jaclaz

I particularly appreciate the fact that you managed to draw the drive "upside down" from all the photos and schematics seen before , and knowing that I tried to describe the pin on the drive as "rightmost" and "to the left", this helps a lot in the disambiguating process , expecially since the drawing has not the 1., 2. 3. with which you designated the pins. So, in a nutshell, let's forget about Tx and Rx. The pin nearest to the SATA and power connector "expects" to Receive signals from the TTL adapter. The next pin Transmits data to the TTL adapter. The next pin is GND <- that was an easy one. jaclaz

I would have thought that you have the schematics of the "super-deluxe" thingy, problem would be if you remember how you connected the cables to the HD pins, on the MAX232 side, Tx should be the whatever connected to pin 10 or pin 11 (T1IN and T2IN) (or the 9 and 12 R1OUT and R2OUT? ). jaclaz

Sure , nice calculations. As I see it, you have to put into account that they do provide: http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00810334&tmp_track_link=ot_recdoc/c01890478/en_us/c00810334/loc:1&lc=en&dlc=en&cc=us&product=4110062 (though apparently not for that model - or at least I wasn't able to see the "CD-ROM order page - Recovery Discs" ) recovery CD/DVD's for something in the US$15÷20 range. (You may also want to notice how the example dialog in the above shows that there is a drop down box for Quantity, which in plain English means that you can only create your recovery CD/DVD's once, but you can buy more than one copy with the same serial ). Now, let's say that out of the 18,700 sales 1/3 is "Corporate" and will use their ways or have an IT to manage the PC's, 1/3 are home/office users that will manage to create the discs without problems, 1/4 won't care or will find another way and will never be heard. This leaves us with 1/12 i.e. roughly 1,500 people that most probably will : call support, let's say 1/2 hour of a support guy lost after this issue lose 1 to 3 hours of their time to manage to order the stupid CD/DVD's fork from some 20 bucks to get them wait, say a week with an unusable computer for the discs to arrive Of the above only #1 is of course at the OEM expense, but if you take into account: that the CD/DVD's will cost you more (producing a given DVD in, say 750 pieces for Vista and 750 for 7 will cost much more per unit than producing 7,500) that you need a place where to keep these CD (unless someone burns them on order ) that you need an inventory of them that probably you either underestimated or overestimated the yearly amount of pieces needed, and you will either need to pay for them more or to dispose the ones you didn't sell (and you also have to do it "safely" to avoid problems with MS) that someone has to phisycally get the CD/DVD's, package and send them that the mail will want a few dimes for delivering I doubt that the 15 bucks will cover the costs. However, this way they get 1,500 angry customers each year, which (unless they are complete morons) will tell all their friends and relatives how crappy it was the method chosen, which is not unlikely that will double the number of people that next year (or two years after) could have become HP Customers and will instead choose another brand because of this "accident", thus losing maybe 3,000 possible customers of their new notebook. Now, does it sound smart in the long run? jaclaz

With all due respect , the "unfortunately" should be intended as "as expected" , the warning is clear enough on the given link: the check if a previous backup has been made is clearly the same, doesn't matter if you try with the "normal" CD/DVD utility or with the USB stick one. Sorry to beat your (sadly) dead horse, but you may notice how even "attempting" (which should imply "without succeeding") to create the media seems like triggering the "already made" flag or whatever that prevents you to create the recovery disk now . I guess that HP Support is at the moment the only possible way out. Generally speaking if you soothe them enough and then shout aloud enough you can get *something* from support, they may even believe your story! I do understand how difficult is the work of the support guys, , but very often you find people that think you are calling them because you are a whiner and a lier (instead of one of their customers which payed a non-trivial amount of money to buy one of their firm products and are in deep trouble because they made a crappy decision to shave off what, US$ 3.00, from the value of the thingy you bought ) and that you are somehow attempting to *steal* something from them. jaclaz

If I may, what would be the intended use of nlite in the recovery of a system in which the hard disk was wiped? jaclaz

For the record I cannot see ANY reference in the OP question about Data Recovery. And I hope it wasn't an urgent problem since the thread was started on the 17th of April. Just in case, try using some other file manager and not Explorer, 7-zip could do, sometimes "peculiar" folders are simply locked out "by design" in Explorer. jaclaz

It seems like it has leaked before in 2004 : http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/registry2/windows-explorer-default-drive.aspx I guess that changing the drive letter from C: to S: was made in order to avoid problems with copyright and what not. http://www.windowsitpro.com/content/content/43043/Listing_01.txt jaclaz

The key is in the Registry, if the Registry can be accessed, the key can be retrieved and decoded. I would try this, first thing: http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/product_cd_key_viewer.html Next: http://www.magicaljellybean.com/keyfinder/ jaclaz

Is ALL the customization you performed ONLY the WINNT.SIF you posted? Can you please whenever posting code to enclose it in [ code ] [/ code ] tags (if it's just a snippet) or use [ codebox ] [/ codebox ] ones (if it's more than a few lines), it greatly adds to the readability of a thread. Examples: Hi I'm inside CODE tags Hi, I'm inside CODEBOX tags and I have a scrolling bar on the right .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... Nothing else to see, I'm afraid.

This is the problem, you are NOT deploying any image, you are INSTALLING from scratch (Unattended), two different things. jaclaz

Very well said. NO. I'll try again to break down the structure in priorities for you: Facts: you have a bricked drive this drive is bricked presumably because a stoopid software in the drive has been made in such a way that every time you position 320 of the log (or multiple mod 256) is hit , the drive gets bricked when powered on you have valuable DATA on the drive, but not valuable enough to pay several hundred dollars to a recovery firm, or however you want to take your chances trusting a bunch of crazy people on an internet forum and follow the procedure suggested PRIMARY Objective: save your otherwise UNbacked up DATA by having a TEMPORARILY functional unbricked drive [*]SECONDARY objective (SUGGESTED): set things so that such a problem won't happen again (learn from experience=BACKUP!) [*]TERTIARY objective (OPTIONAL): attempt to have the once bricked drive fully functional or have a new working one THEN: Procedure to reach PRIMARY objective : unbrick the drive as per instructions image (or however copy/recover the DATA in it) to another, surely working, drive [*]Procedure to reach SECONDARY objective: make an additional copy (better, TWO of them) of the data on different media [*]Procedure to reach TERTIARY objective (IF first two succeeded): test thoroughfully the unbricked drive IF anything is not OK, and if under warranty RMA it IF RMA is not possible or the drive shows no errors, decide if you prefer: to throw into the dustbin the stoopid drive anyway OR to continue using it IF you chose to continue using it, decide IF: you prefer NOT to risk a firmware upgrade of the firmware and you will likely need to unbrick it again after no less 6 to 12 months of "normal" use, many more months if you don't powercycle it often OR you prefer to risk a firmware upgrade IF you decide to perform a firmware upgrade, choose the firmware file wisely In other words, updating the firmware is the LAST and LEAST of your problems, and you have at least 3 months of time (since a hopefully successful unbricking ) for safely deciding whether you really want to upgrade it and do researches to find out which is the "right" firmware. Now, the fact that it bricked last Friday, may be a problem, but only if it was full moon where you live. Apart from that, you should have no problems in reaching the important objective: GET YOUR DATA BACK by following the suggested procedures (EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED). jaclaz

Sure it is labeled Seagate , point is that if it is also labeled with the HP logo and a HP part number. Post a photo of it if you are not sure, but if it has an HP firmware it is an HP OEM drive (unless someone already fiddled with it). jaclaz

I guess there is some confusion in terms, (and you need not to SHOUT ). The term "cloning" is deceiving. A "clone" is an EXACT copy of something else. Strictly speaking you cannot "clone" a single partition, you can only "clone" a WHOLE hard disk, unless you re-place the "cloned" partition in exactly the same position and with exactly the same size as it was. Most "cloning" softwares however do make an exact copy of the source partition AND allow it to be restored on a different position on hard disk OR to shrink it/enlarge it. (which of course is not anymore a real "clone") If the target drive is NOT already partitioned, it is relatively straightforward. If the target drive is already partitioned, you need to shrink existing partition(s) to allow for the creation of the new "cloned" partition. If you want to REPLACE an existing partition with the "cloned" image, obviously data on the previous partition will be lost, as it will be overwritten. What you may want to explore is another approach, i.e. file-based copy, something along the lines of what XXCLONE (a very good example of an improperly named program ) does: http://www.xxclone.com/ http://www.xxclone.com/itheory.htm But the real problem, if I may, is well before the imaging/cloning one, you are saying that you have 700 Gb of valuable data stored on that hard disk ONLY, that you have NO current backup of them (you should have TWO backups of that data) and you are not even going to back it up once in this occasion. Your data is at great risk anyway, you shouldn't even think about doing "heavy" drive operations without a valid backup (actually TWO). jaclaz