jaclaz

I am sorry to hear about your experience. But you seem to have a "wrong" start point. A disk drive, ANY disk drive, is NOT "invulnerable" and NOT "everlasting". Fixing the firmware defect this thread is about, fixes that firmware defect and nothing else, the drive is NOT made invulnerable, nor it gets "super powers" through the procedure. Drives FAIL. They do fail for any reason in the world (and even one more). The fail unpredictably (don't get confused by all the fuzz about S.M.A.R.T., it is simply NOT smart, or not smart enough). There are NO real studies on the matter, AFAIK, if not the known one by Google: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6376021.stm http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/02/8917.ars http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf NOT having a backup of important data is exactly like playing Russian roulette with a Derringer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derringer We are now at post #196x on this thread, with 621,958 views, and more than 8 months have passed since first post. I reckon that, taking into account unuseful/duplicated posts, the other guides around, people doing the fix without reporting it, the number of drives that have been fixed "DIY" can be estimated in anything between 1,000 and 100,000. If we take the lower estimated boundary of 1,000 drives, we would need at least 45 reports of "afterfix" failures to "get even" with the Google study statistical analisys, which rates around 2,5% in the first 3 months and around 2% additionally in the nect 6 to 9 months. Since it is the lower boundary we estimated, I would expect more likely something in the over 100 reports to give to the failure a statistical significance and allowing the connection with the LBA0 or BSY fixes. I have seen reports of dead drives that were RMAed and fixed/replaced by Seagate itself, so I personally would not link the "bricking/debricking" with a later failure. I mean it is of course possible, but not probable, at least with the data vailable. jaclaz

Only too happy of having been of help. jaclaz

Look into the MP3 CAR forum. THey have the "reverse" thing for minlogon: http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/winnt-base...l-minlogon.html they may have something that does what tyou want. These should be the actual answers: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/system/preventclose.aspx http://www.codeproject.com/KB/winsdk/AntonioWinLock.aspx http://www.msfn.org/board/disable-control-...ows-t57964.html jaclaz

Yep, that's it : Still, it wasn't "free", you paid for postage and handling $19.95, and it wasn't available "monolithic" as a download. Now that we have an "accurate" search string, some results can be found: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/232681/en-us File list: 01 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238664/en-us 02 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238666/en-us 03 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238668/en-us 04 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238728/en-us 05 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238729/en-us 06 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238730/en-us 07 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238749/en-us 08 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238767/en-us 09 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238771/en-us 10 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238775/en-us 11 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238809/en-us 12 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238811/en-us 13 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238813/en-us 14 of 14: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/239011/en-us (please note how the MS guys in an attempt to make the life of their users an easy one completely FAILED to link on each page the next one and numbered the parts using results of a BINGO draw ) Cannot recover: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/232753/en-us Some info: http://www.windowsbbs.com/windows-95-98-me...e-fr-win98.html http://www.helpwithwindows.com/windows98/start-011.html http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc751504.aspx Acthual behaviour/screenshots: http://www.pctechguide.com/tutorials/Win98...all_Win98SE.htm This: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9905/10/....idg/index.html quotes the S&H to $19.95: This: http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/...-available.html quotes the S&H to $24.95: It's strange how the $$ apparently changed from 19.95 to 24.95, in the period may/june 1999. jaclaz

It is not that there is some confusion between the "real" "full" FE to SE update and the ServicePack 1? http://www.mdgx.com/win.htm AFAIK the "real" update was never "totally" free. Besides, are we talking of this one: http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-98.../ref=pd_cp_sw_2 or this one? http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-re.../ref=pd_cp_sw_3 or something else? Like this "step up" mentioned here: http://forums.techarena.in/troubleshoot-98/1249828.htm http://www.cwdixon.com/support/win98_suppo...ntroduction.htm http://www.itnetcentral.com/tech/windows-9...dition-135.html Or is the step up one of the two above? Please take note how this article: http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/ar...s09%2F04s09.asp Rightly (at the time) considers the US $19.95+S&H a deal when compared to the time and expene for an online download. And this one, clears the fact that a lot of confusion was made at the time: http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/...-confusion.html To add some more confusion: http://www.geocities.com/~budallen/second_edition.html it seem like the version is actually called "Windows 98 Second Edition Updates" and cannot be installed if not from a booted 98 FE: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/232678/en-us Windows 98 Second Edition is available in the following versions: Windows 98 Second Edition Full Version Windows 98 Second Edition Upgrade Version Windows 98 Second Edition Updates Windows 98 Second Edition OEM versions jaclaz

Sure nothing is wrong , but since this thread will be read by a number of people that might want to know how it should be done BEFORE actually doing it, I find advisable to post HOW it should be done to be on the SAFE sife, (as opposed to "better than" or "good enough"). The whole point is that the target (or audience) is most probably made of inexperienced users (the experienced ones won't come here to learn what they already know ), it is at least possible than an unexperienced user: won't be able to build a proper PE with all the tools will do somethng "wrong" compromising the data or filesystem to be recovered Having a dd copy of the thingy and working on the copy assures that if anything wrong is done (or a lightning strikes ) there is a possibility of trying again with another tool or another approach. Just another post of the "better be safe than sorry" series. jaclaz

What do you mean "will this work"? This only loads NT/2K/XP's on secondary drives, no more no less. If you want to boot other OSes, you can use GRUB ,grub4dos, PLop, syslinux, gujin, lilo, and/or the Vista BOOTMGR, special bootsectors and what not, there is more than one way to skin a cat, but you have to catch the cat first thing. (it's only a metaphor, no cat was harmed in the making of this post) jaclaz

Well, NO. If we are talking about "attempting to recovery data and who cares if it fails", it's allright. Otherwise, if the scope is "attempting to recovery data and be able to do further attempts", the "right" approach is in the already linked to post: http://www.msfn.org/board/data-recovery-to...45.html&hl= jaclaz

No one can say which it's best for you. Everyone has his/her own opinions on the matter, but as per today grub4dos and Syslinux have roughly the same features. I would say grub4dos, because I am more familiar with it, another member might say Syslinux, noone can say which one is better, and definitely NOT which one is better for you. FYI: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8546 Grub4dos Forum: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=66 Syslinux Forum (new) http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=92 And, just for the record, there is no match , Godzilla wins over King Kong hands down. jaclaz

Make yourself a few floppy images with the different versions of NTLDR and NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI and boot them through grub4dos. This way you can compare any version (of course you can use only backwards compatibility). Quick sum up: http://msfn.org/board/index.php?act=ST&amp...04&t=127900 AND useful should you have a 2K with a registry bigger than around 16 Mb. jaclaz

It seems like everything is working now. jaclaz

Yes. Usually the easiest is to integrate the DriversPacks, though for just one specific PC it is overkill. jaclaz

I have THREE of them salvaged from a company gone default. They are sturdy, they are heavy, they are clicky, they are springy, they are everything you can expect from a keyboard (and also have removable caps over keys, so that you can BOTH "play DAS KEYBOARD" AND play some tricks to a newcomer - usually exchanging just "u" with "i" and "r" with "t" is enough to enjoy interesting typed text). Now, THIS: http://www.datamancer.net/keyboards/aviator/aviator.htm is a nice keyboard I would really, really like. jaclaz

The POWER you supply has NOTHING to do with the TTL levels the interface needs to provide to the sata. If the chip is the version that needs 5V you need to supply to it 5V. If the chip is the version that requires 3.3V you may use a 3V new battery, there are reports that a slightly discharged one didn't managed to operate. Among th e"Maxim" series: the 3.3V version is usually known as MAX3232: http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/1068 as opposed to the "normal" MAX232: http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/1798 Each version of the chip properly powered will output proper TTL level signals: http://www.interfacebus.com/voltage_threshold.html TTL interprets as 0 anything below 0.8 V and as 1 anything above (within limits ) 2 V. The one you used: http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi...em=200384540331 Doesn't hide very well: the fact that it NEEDS 5V jaclaz

You need a trick or two. Check fdv (Fred De Vorck) pages, he had something about editing explorer to use a NT4 dll renamed, I can't find th einfo on the new site, but the old one is still here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060211002335/...ck.com/nt4.html jaclaz

All four mentioned systems can (and should in mypersonal opinion) be installed on logical volumes inside extended. You only need one primary active partition for the bootloader(s). jaclaz

From what you report, you simply were NOT successful in unbricking the drive. Maybe you are not anymore in the LBA0 issue, but still in the BSY one, or you are in yet another "unworking" state. What was is the difficult part in this?: http://www.msfn.org/board/solution-seagate...-page-1918.html jaclaz

Yep, the board software is a bit "hysterical", from time to time. These work: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=78097 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=49103 The ones in this post: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...=3155&st=15 do work. General explanation, this link: really means: the latter shold work with any of the board settings and "stupid" friendly names, and the various version of them. Current valid link to the same thread is: it seems like for some time an underscore "_ " was used instead of the minus "- "sign. jaclaz

But on the 2K, are you using it's original NTLDR + NTDETECT.COM or a XP/2003 one? Just in case: http://www.msfn.org/board/which-os-2000-xp...re-t104327.html OT, but not much (actually sequel to the above referenced thread): http://www.msfn.org/board/fat16-vs-fat32-v...ck-t125116.html jaclaz

How many drives do you have as FIRST DRIVE? jaclaz

It is not necessary, but you should be able to install the drivers and switch it later, example: http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=444831 There are LOTS of "bla-bla's" about AHCI being great, but ultimately most opinions rely to the FALSE silllogism New=Always Better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA The main advantages of AHCI over SATA (read IDE emulation) are: hot-plug <-not needed for a system internal HD NCQ <- Native Command Queueing <- this CAN make a BIG difference, IF the actual HD drive supports it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_command_queuing staggered spin-up of drives <-normally pointless in a portable with just one internal HD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-up jaclaz

No prob about that, but I must have failed to explain the issue at hand NOW. If you try to make a link to a specific post through the board the result is NOT a link to the post, but rather a link to the PAGE where the specific post is. This has nothing to do with the different "syntax" used, it's the board software that FAILS to resolve a link (that was generated by the Board itself) to a post and returns a page. jaclaz

Hmmm. If you cannot boot from each of them (when they are together) how can you say that they all three work allright? Sure, when each of them is set "alone" as boot device, it works perfectly, but that does not necessarily mean that they will work together. But don't worry, they will. You can achieve that WITHOUT using ANY third part utility, simply adding a few entries to your boot.ini. Right now most probably you have on your FIRST ACTIVE partition of FIRST hard disk a BOOT.INI file (that you can open/edit with Notepad) with this contents: [boot loader] timeout=30 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS [operating systems] multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect Simply add to it two lines: Read about BOOT.INI here: http://www.msfn.org/board/discovery-unusua...pid-227601.html http://www.msfn.org/board/boot-ini-and-dif...ive-t25365.html If you are going with something else, you want to use grub4dos, as it is the most straightforward (and easily removable) option. Take your time reading it's guide: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5187 http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/Grub4dos.htm You want to use at the beginning THIS (and NOT any other) setup: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/...ws.htm#windows1 If you have any question, post them BEFORE fiddling with files/things you are not SURE about. jaclaz

No, they are NOT the same. As said, among the Freeware ones, PHOTOREC: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec is worth a shot, as well as http://www.pcinspector.de/Sites/file_recov....htm?language=1 Or the NTFS specific ScroungeNTFS: http://memberwebs.com/stef/software/scrounge/ Among the Commercial ones the one that I found most effective are/were: TiramiSU (old, not anymore available, it was bought by OnTrack) NTFS File Scavenger:; http://www.quetek.com/prod02.htm But really there is no way one can say "app x will work where app y failed". If the data has been overwritten there are NO chances, no matter what program you use. If the data has NOT been overwritten, but was fragmented before, different programs may give you different results. Read this, where more programs are listed and a possible (please read "right" ) approach to the problem is summed up: http://www.msfn.org/board/data-recovery-to...45.html&hl= jaclaz

Translation of Testdisk screenshots (apparently) Before "overghosting" there was: a partition on cylinders 0÷2609, sectors 41,929,587x512=21,467,948,544 bytes (around 20 Gb) a partition on cylinders 2610÷14592, sectors 192,506,832x512=98,563,497,984 (around 100 Gb) The image was "superimposed" spanning the whole disk, thus creating a new partition: a partition on cylinders 0÷1492, sectors 234,436,482x512=120,031,478,784 (around 120 Gb) The "old" partitioning info was not overwritten, but it is possible that other filesystem structure partially were. Yes, file oriented data recovery is needed at this point, depending on the fragmentation grade of the old partitioning (and size of the single files), results may vary from very good to very poor. jaclaz