jaclaz

Well, you can memorize a "one line" batch, but still I am not sure if you want to check if folders are empty or not. I mean this, directly entered on command line: FOR /F "delims=" %A IN ('dir /b /s /A:D') DO ECHO "%A" will list only folders "below" current path, something like this: FOR /F "delims=" %A IN ('dir /b /s /A:D') DO RD "%A" 2>nul will only delete EMPTY folders (without prompting) But you will have to re-run it for each "level". Using this: FOR /F "delims=" %A IN ('dir /b /s /A:D') DO RD "%A" /S 2>nul will prompt you, but if you say yes to deleting a higher level folder, you will be prompted for all folders in the lower levels (that do not exist anymore) jaclaz

Hmmm : http://www.msfn.org/board/Hiren-Boot-CD-t38784.html jaclaz

Just in case, alternate drivers to try are Maximus Decim's: http://www.msfn.org/board/Maximum-Decim-Na...USB-t43605.html Generic one: http://www.msfn.org/board/Generic-98-USB-d...-me-t99220.html jaclaz

No, but, just for the record, it is possible to run Windows 3.x on freedos kernel: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...16754&st=43 http://wiki.fdos.org/Main/Windows http://www.fdos.org/kernel/test/ So it should be possible to also make it work with WIN9x, but what would be the scope? I mean, while it is possible that one holds a valid license for Win 3.x, but not for MS-DOS, if you have a licence for WIN9x/ME you also have a licence to use the underlying DOS 7.x/8.0. I don't think that the freedos kernel files provide any advantage over MS-DOS 7.x/8.0. jaclaz

What about a small batch file? If I get it right you want to delete files one by one, and then remove folders one by one, being prompted each time? jaclaz

Actually we would call that a "mess" , however, WHICH " MS-DOS programs in the Win98SE setup"? And Why? jaclaz

Yep, that was exactly the idea: During a Repair may work Botsect.exe WON'T. jaclaz

Just for the record: in some cases it is possible to do a Repair install http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/XPrepairinstall.htm http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html the procedure is tricky, so it is not recommended unless there is a reason. Usually the BSOD flashes and then the computer restarts because of a badly configured (MS setting by default ) Registry key. By default XP is set that in case of Error it should re-boot. This setting can be changed through the GUI on a fully booted XP, in a case like yours the fix is changing a key in the Registry: http://www.pctools.com/guides/registry/detail/229/ You will need a PE of some kind to boot from and change the Registry key value in order to see the BSOD and know which is the specuific STOP ERROR it gives, most probably the 0x0000007b connected to a missing/wrong mass storage device driver as Tripredacus hinted. jaclaz

Yep, may ask you WHY do you want to argue over something for which you already know the (hopefully correct) answer? jaclaz

.WPS is the extension for Microsoft Works text files, .WPD for Works Database. http://www.fileinfo.net/extension/wps as - BTW - clear from your screenshots and association. If you don't have Works installed on that PC, you may need to install an additional filter/importer to Word (to open the text files): http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en and Access: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/197894/en-us for the Database ones. jaclaz

I knew you would have appreciated it. jaclaz

I'll try to rephrase my previous post. Forget everything I wrote, try this and this only: http://www.pablosoftwaresolutions.com/html...ftp_server.html Once you have it working, and only them, try another one. (if needed) jaclaz

Spelling corrected in my post. Can I see however an actual report? Particularly, I would be interested in how they (or anyoone else) can UNIVOCALLY get data from: Remember that the original Gutmann's paper talks about "probabilities"... jaclaz

Hmmm, probably the original document misses a Carriage return/Line feed as last character. Send a CR+LF before adding the data, BATCH example ECHO. >>thedoc.ext ECHO 127.0.0.1 testsite.com >>thedoc.ext or maybe easier : (ECHO. ECHO 127.0.0.1 testsite.com ) >>thedoc.ext jaclaz

Try the other ones also: CHKDSK DISKCOPY <- probably not doable FDISK <- NO, NOT this one! FORMAT - tested LABEL SYS Would it be possible that something similar to SUBST is "automagically" done when booting 98? What if you run SUBST (with no arguments)? jaclaz P.S.: Check this: http://www.mdgx.com/98-2.htm also And maybe, just maybe, something like this this could be a possible CAUSE: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/PhantomDrv.mspx Could the DRVOFF utility work? Can it be found anywhere? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/232681/en-us

I remember (an awful number of years ago ) a similar problem on a machine (we are talking of the floppy and MS DOS 6.22) where some smart@§§ had managed to put a SUBST command in autoexec.bat mapping drive A: to drive B: (or something like it, cannot really remember the details) and similar problems "strange" directory listings, freezing etc. happened. Can you try running on the "Phoney" drive some of the "SUBST forbidden" commands and see how it behaves? ;unsure: http://www.easydos.com/subst.html (just for the sake of the experiment, I don't think it can lead us any further ) jaclaz

No, actually it's not your (or my ) fault , the boot-land server has been a bit erratic lately, it seems like due to web agents/bots "attacking" it. The links in the thread are however these (FYI): http://www.nber.org/sys-admin/overwritten-data-guttman.html http://www.actionfront.com/whitepaper/Driv...20Ver14Alrs.pdf http://www.actionfront.com/whitepaper/Driv...%20Preprint.pdf http://www.forensicfocus.com/index.php?nam...065&start=0 http://16systems.com/zero/index.html It is also worth a read the Original Gutmann's Paper (the thing that unwantingly originated the MYTH): http://www.usenix.org/publications/library...mann/index.html AND in the newish version comprising the "Epilogue": http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html (bolding/underlining is mine) What a bunch of guys (with the "outside" very little help of yours truly ) are trying desperately to do is to debunk the myth of the "several passes" and also that of "random data" needed, risking to overdoing it : one single pass with 00's is enough! jaclaz

Very good. From it's FAQ's: From it's Protocols: http://cmrr.ucsd.edu/people/Hughes/CmrrSec...seProtocols.pdf jaclaz

Sure , I was referring just to the bootsect.exe. The DVD repair is OK. jaclaz

In a nutshell but if you had actually read the links you should already have got this : clean/format/full format DO NOTHING to the actual files that can then be recovered (if not overwritten) at ANY time with very high probability of success. wiping (i.e. overwriting) with a single pass of 00's is ENOUGH to make the files UNRECOVERABLE by ANYONE except maybe and only in a frammentary and not at all "dependable" way by perhaps a few Government Agencies through the use of of MFM (Magnetic Force Microscope) with a procedure that will likely take weeks. There is NO reason (except security concerns) to completely wipe a hard disk. (drive WON'T be faster, but you will lose some time waiting for the wiping to complete and you will put unneeded strain on the HD) There is NO reason to ever do more than a single pass. (there is NO evidence that something can be recovered after a single pass) jaclaz

@mongo66 that won't help much, if the system boots up to the point where it starts "complaining" about changed hardware, the MBR does it job allright, and, besides bootsect.exe "repairs" the bootsector not the MBR. There is some confusion about that since MS referes to it: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749177.aspx as "master boot code" (of the partition bootsector) and previous versions of the utility behaved differently: http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/bootsectexe-...or-not-the-mbr/ @donpham It is possible that, for any reason, you did not image/clone the MBR and it's signature. Can you verify that you actually have the same signature on both drives? Reference for the MBR signature: http://mirror.href.com/thestarman/asm/mbr/Win2kmbr.htm jaclaz

The link you gave is not clickable. This is the "right" one: http://www.msfn.org/board/opening-world-t125235.html What you initially asked was not "how do I setup a FTP server" and definitely not "how do I setup the Windows Server 2008 FTP service", it was more like: So the advice I can give is BEFORE anything else, take some time around this site: http://www.windowsnetworking.com/ Any advice guys here on MSFN will probably be able to give you will assume a minimum of familairity with network related terms and concepts. In any case the built-in FTP server in Windows 2008 is an "advanced" type of Server: http://www.downloadjunkie.co.uk/2007/12/set-up-and-mana.html http://www.zftpserver.com/ You may want to experiment a bit with simple third party FTP servers, like the one above or any of these (they are all easier to setup): http://freeftpd.com/?ctt=download http://filezilla-project.org/ This should be the "easiest": http://www.pablosoftwaresolutions.com/html...ftp_server.html jaclaz

Interesting Though I cannot find in the attached ANY script, only a compiled app. Can't we have the actual script? You may be interested in this: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=124539 where some alternate ways (i.e. without using Diskpart) are being explored. jaclaz

Well the "speed increase" may not be due to faster data transmission through the bottleneck but to several other factors, due to the 5400 drive being faster than the 4500 (not just because it spins faster ) like bigger cache, faster seek time, and a number of other factors. A 4500 RPM drive had typically 12 ms access, whilst most 5400 went for 9 ms. As an example it appears that NCQ (Native Command Queing) that was implemented in SATA drives is the factor that make them compete on an almost even level with SCSI ULTRA 320 faster spinning drives: http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles.php?id=19 This: http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/index.html http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref...perf/index.html is a very interesting thing to read. ...but it also depends on the actual data you are reading/writing, 0's are better than 1's : http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...21827&st=23 jaclaz

I meant the whole thread, not just the first post, including this: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...c=2683&st=8 and later. The whole point I am trying to make is that noone has EVER seen ANY data recovered adter a single 00 pass, or if this EVER happened there is NO actual eveidence of this ANYWHERE, ad, as said there: jaclaz