Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Torchizard

  1. I was on the hunt for a 'new' motherboard for my PC based on an Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 (2.2Ghz). I was about to buy the Gigabyte GA-8I865GME-775-RH when I saw this on their website: So I searched for the CPU support list and could only find one for the rev 6.6 version while I am only able to get the rev 2.0 one. Would there be any difference between the CPU support lists that would affect me and what goes Gigabyte mean in that statement?
  2. See: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/107504-integration-of-intels-sata-ahci-and-raid-drivers/ jaclaz Thanks jaclaz, I'll try that.
  3. Just tried installing XP and the installation bluescreened because of the lack of AHCI drivers. Tried searching on the net for one but didn't have any luck. Does a XP AHCI driver for my laptop actually exist? (Dell Inspiron 7520)
  4. I'm currently dualbooting W7 x64 and W7 x32 on my Dell Inspiron 7520. The 64 bit OS is just for normal tasks and the 32 bit OS is for compatibility with 16-bit applications. Would replacing the 32-bit W7 with XP provide any benefits?
  5. I opened it and there's not much dust, if any at all. When I finished gaming and moved on to just word processing, the fan turned on and went to a higher speed than while gaming. So what's mysterious here is that while then fan is needed in a task such as gaming, it doesn't spin up as much as simple routine cooling. Also, because of the distance between the card and processor, it seems like there actually are two fans, one for each heat-generating component. This is only an assumption but is seemed as if the GPU fan was non-functional and only relied on the CPU fan for air circulation.
  6. Here in Australia, we're already starting to feel the temperatures that come with summer. Today was around 34 degrees or so. When I started up a game on my laptop that would usually allow the graphics card to stay cool (no temp. difference from other parts of laptop body) but the card soon heated up to a point where you could still keep your hand on the part with the card but it would be unpleasant. (This is on a Dell Inspiron 7520 BTW) Since I'm 99% sure that the fan used to rotate faster than it is now, is it possible that there is something limiting its speed? Also, should a temperature change of like 7 degrees between now and a few days ago really be affecting the GPU temp this much?
  7. What do you mean by "flippism"? Do you mean having an extra drive handy if the other fails?
  8. I've recently been looking for a high-capacity 3.5" external drive for use as both backup and 'casual' storage for use in a USB3 case. I've been looking at different manufacturers' websites and I can't decide which drive I should get. Does anyone have any suggestions about which drive would be good? Also, with the amount of Seagate drive failure-related topics on this forum, have their drives dropped in quality or something?
  9. Remaining time: 12 hours with only 1% fragmentation... SSDs are supposed to be faster than HDDs... [Off-topic] Finally not a Newbie anymore [/Off-topic] Edit: I ran a defrag and now there are only a few logs and temp files that are fragmented. Edit: After the defrag, I used Windows Disk Management do resize the volume and it worked. Would the fact that the original resize was during boottime (ie. around the same time-frame that CHKDSK would normally run) have anything to do with the table corruption?
  10. So is the point of defragmenting to move the data that is in the area I want to resize out of it? But I've got an OCZ Vertex 4 which is an SSD so wouldn't defragmenting be bad? And since it has wear-leveling, wouldn't defragging be pointless? Also, I ran CHKDSK like you said with BOTH /r and /f options and it didn't find any problems.
  11. So is there anything else that I should do or should this be enough to get the partition 'clean' and as close to how it was before? And also, if I were to try and shrink this partition again, this time using something like Disk Management, do you think it would be more successful with it not doing what it did before? How much of a chance is there that a shrunk partition creates a black hole that destroys all of earth?
  12. Sure , and that is EXACTLY what I want to see. Please, try again, the output of mountvol or mountvol /? is the same and after some "help" it actually lists volumes and their mountpoints: http://ss64.com/nt/mountvol.html If you like it better, run mountvol | FIND "\">mainMV.txtetc. WHAT you weren't allowed to copy after you ran CHKDSK? The resulting file mainCD.txt? jaclaz I ran chkdsk before I was aware that you could get it to dump output to a file so I was trying to Rclick>select all an Rclick>copy which did not work and so I just gave up and created a screenshot instead. I'll upload the mountvol output. mainMV.zip
  13. When I run mountvol with what you said to do, it creates a file but the file only contains what you would see if you did "mountvol /?" I'll try to be more clear this time. A while ago, when I was getting bored with Ubuntu, I removed it from that partition and instead created a partition for data storage. Then I noticed that windows would assign two different drive letters to the same volume. Then I installed Vista and then Windows 7 (the current second OS). It has stayed like that ever since and it only shows on my main OS. When I go into Disk Management and click on "Change Drive letter and paths", it shows just E: and when I remove that letter, it does its usual busy mouse cursor thing and says F: as the letter of the partition. When I restart, it just reverts to the previous state. EDIT: I tried it again and it doesn't revert to that state anymore. It's just one driveletter now. For chkdsk, I ran it from the second OS, targeted at the main OS's partition. I ran it with the /r parameter and I've attached the output that I got before in the form of a PNG file (as it wasn't letting me copy it for some reason). When I targeted the second OS with the same parameter from the first, it said there were no problems. EDIT: I meant the /f parameter chkdsk.zip
  14. This is strange. I mean the autochk is connected to the *need* to run chkdsk to fix some issue (evidently of a minor kind, since that volume booted afterwards). I would run CHKDSK /F anyway on that volume, next. Yes, post the SFC log, though most probably those problems are unrelated. What we don' t really know is why exactly the tool that you attempted using to resize/move the partition crashed/stopèped. It is possible that there was a problem "before" that and that this problem caused the failure. I have this strange problem (probably unrelated because it started happening before) where the second OS's partition gets mapped to a letter twice (ie. E:\ and F:\ point to the same location). Would this interfere with CHKDSK in any way and does it matter which drive letter I choose? Edit: I've attached the CBS.log files (SFC checker). The smaller one is the second OS. Sorry that the're zip files but my current internet connection is so bad that the normal files would just cut out and plus, I can only upload 500kb of data. I ran checkdisk and it said it found free space marked as allocated in the MFT. CBS.zip CBS (2ndOS).zip
  15. CHKDSK says it doesn't find any problems on either one of the partitions. Also, I ran SFC and that said it had a few problems, should I post that log?
  16. Yes and no. Meaning that with 99% of probabilities, since you can see your files in the "simulated" partition scheme that TESTDISK found, it should mean that the filesystem is OK, i.e. it is very probable that the tool you attempted using to shrink/resize the partition simply wrote the current (wrong) entry in the partition table and failed/crashed/exited without modifying the filesystem . But it is well possible that the filesystem suffered from some damage . Until you do not write the "good" partition table and reboot, you can copy files manually (through the TESTDISK interface) "as they are". Once you reboot there are two possibilities: the volume is marked for an automatic CHKDSK ("dirty" flag) the volume is NOT marked for an automatic CHKDSKIn any case, as said, running a CHKDSK is strongly encouraged as first thing. Now, when you run CHKDSK without knowing if there is a damage in the filesytem (or the extents of this damage) you cannot know in advance what will happen. If there are no damages, then there won't be any problem. If the damage are small/trifling or however "repairable", again there won't be any problem. If the damage is serious, there is a concrete chance that CHKDSK won't be able to fully repair the volume and the process of running CHKDSK may even make a given file not recoverable anymore. And we are back to the general advice of always imaging a disk that presented issues, so that you can "go back" and try something else if what you are doing failed. As said, I do understand why you are not able to do that, but from there to make me say "Ah, well then it's OK, no need to image the disk, just write the partition table and everything will be OK" there is quite a largish leap. Most probably there are no damages to the filesystem or they are fixable by CHKDSK (and there won't be any issues even when attempting booting form that volume), but you won't manage to make me tell you "Go ahead, no prob whatsoever", as YMMGV. jaclaz So I restored the partition table and from my other OS, the drive was accessible. CHKDSK never showed up. I tried booting the OS but it restarted as soon as I selected it so I ran startup repair off a DVD which said it corrected some problems. So after that , the second OS booted just fine like before but the original OS went past the starting windows screen and then said that 'pwnative' and 'autochk' were missing and that they were skipped. Then it went to a bluescreen saying that the Session Manager Initialization system process terminated unexpectedly. Now for some weird reason, the second OS won't start correctly unless it is in safe mode. Never mind, it just derped during resuming from sleep. Edit 2: On the original system, I selected Last known boot configuration and it worked, IT BOOTS!!!!!! Edit 3: It seems CHKDSK does not want to co-operate as it says the path is invalid whenever I try to run it.
  17. Good. Everything seems fine then, maybe excepted to the meaning of life of the verbs "to round" and to "approximate". And in any case that is the answer to the ultimate question about life, the universe an everything, not about the meaning of liff of life, which it's nothing much special: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085959/quotes?item=qt0256724 @dencorso What I see below Attach Files And NO I am not even THINKING of trying the advanced uploader (what i call "retarded flash based bloat" ) jaclaz So would I be fine to go ahead and write the partitions to disk? Also, would I be able to use currently "buried" OS like before?
  18. Yeah, on one of my previous topics I attached a file and now when I was looking for the attach button, I spent five minutes trying to find something which I previously remembered existing. [Offtopic] My post number is now the meaning of life! [/Offtopic]
  19. And this is how it should look (according to TESTDISK): The first and last partitions appear the same (and correct). The one in the middle does not. If by accessing it through TESTDISK with the "simulated written" new partition table you can actually see it's contents (directories/files) it should mean that the whatever you used to resize the "middle" partition did not do it's job or was interrupted before updating the partition table. The partitioning that TESTDISK found appears correct. Now, it's up to you. You can decide to first save the data (only the really meaningful one, i.e. something that you really-really cannot replace/reinstall/recreate) by copying the files from the disk through the TESTDISK (temporary/volatile) access through the "p" (of course these files need to be copied to another disk drive) manually. And after re-run testdisk (append to the log, just in case) and repeat the analysis then write the changes: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk_Step_By_Step#Partition_table_recovery Or directly do the writing of the correct partition table. In any case, the first thing that will be needed, after the new partition table is written and a reboot, would be a CHKDSK on the volume. BUT there is something "queer" (that needs to be cleared) BEFORE doing anything of the above. You reported: What you will have after writing the partition table will be: 100 Mb System partition Primary (like you have now) 204800x512=104857600 400 Gb partition Primary 795205632x512=407145283584 100 Gb partition Primary 204800000x512=104857600000 that would be the same as you had before even attempting to shrink the middle partition. even if the "roughly" 100 Gb last partition corresponds to the 90 Gb one you saw, the math doesn't sound right, 14+300+50, even roughly, does not match the current 400 Gb (which instead sounds right). The last partition is 104,857,600,000, i.e. around 100 or 98 Gb (depending on how it is measured) In the "current" setup the "gap" between first and second partition is 15,028,191,232 bytes (which would correspond to the 14 Gb you saw), the "middle" (wrong) partition is 339,688,292,352 (which would be seen as a 316 or 324 Gb partition) and the "gap" before the last partition is 52,428,800,000, i.e. seen as 50 Gb. Is it possible that you reported 300 instead of 316 or 324? Compare with the table: jaclaz Heck the table cannot be attached, find it here: http://www2.zshares.net/lu50vdy9cz84 Yeah, the values that I said were only rough estimates, based only on the first digit. What it actually reports is: 100Mb System Reserved 14Gb Unallocated 316.36Gb RAW 48.83 Unallocated (The amount I resized) 97.66Gb (Other OS)
  20. I do understand that, but I have to tell you the reason why it was suggested and the risk that you may face by being not able to follow that advice. So, next step is to get and run TESTDISK, to have hopefully a general idea of the issue. You want to create a LOG and to post it as an attachment to your next reply. http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk_Step_By_Step When asked if you want to look for partitions created under Vista, answer Yes. DO NOT, and I mean DO NOT take any action unless you are VERY, VERY sure about what you are doing before having posted the LOG and having got a reply with possible diagnosis/set of recovery instructions. jaclaz So I used TestDisk and it seems to have found the partition. When I select it, it also seems to show all the folders\files that were on there before. It didn't ask me about vista partitions but it still showed the partition. I don't see the option to upload files anywhere on here so here's a Pastebin link instead: http://pastebin.com/3FEHRDnx
  21. As I kinda said before, unless there is a way to ghost the drive and split it into multiple volumes as none that I currently have are large enough, I won't be able to create that image.
  22. The other OS is Windows 7 x86. A check of disabledeletenotify shows that TRIM seems to be enabled but since TRIM is for just files and this OS didn't come in contact with the other partition before the partition got changed into that Unalloc\Raw mix, wouldn't that mean that TRIM can't do anything? Also, since I'm currently away from home, I don't have any drives that are large enough (I do have one, but it is half full with data that wouldn't fit elsewhere). I may be asking this question slightly too early, but if I get what seems like all of the data off my drive (since with SSDs, it most probably would be all or nothing), would it be better to try and recreate the OS using that or just reinstall and dump the data?
  23. I was resizing a partition on one of my laptops to make room for an Ubuntu installation using Partition Wizard. when PW finished, I restarted my Pc and the installation of W7 that was on the partition that I shrunk bluescreened while showing the Startung Windows... screen. The other OS on the drive is fine. When I looked at drive management on the other OS, it showed something simmilar to: 100Mb system reserved, 14Gb unallocated space, 300Gb RAW(part of the corruupted os with the 14Gb unallocated), 50Gb unallocated (planned for Ubuntu) and 90GB (my other OS). The only problem is that this is on an OCZ Vertex 4 so would I be able to use traditional recovery software or not?
  24. So I installed Windows 7 x86, downloaded the WiFi\Bluetooth driver and started installing. After the progress bar filled, the window disappeared and a while later, said it failed with an error log Network_Driver_G9X9G_WN_WLAN_10.0.0.59_A04.txt. How can I fix this? Edit: I forgot to mention, the Bluetooth icon in the taskbar appears after the installation fails so I am guessing that it has problems installing just the WiFI driver.
  25. Firstly, to clarify the most common replies that this type of topic gets, I am aware of virtual machines (and I do use them) but this is something I would like to do on real hardware and yes, I do have separate licenses for each OS. I would like to get my laptop to dual-boot two instances of Windows 7, one 64-bit and one 32-bit (for compatibility with 16-bit apps). When I searched on the internet, I got mixed results, some saying you can and some saying there are compatibility issues between these OSes and then others insisted that the OP use a VM. I would like some opinions here, is it possible to dual-boot 7 x64 and 7 x86?
  • Create New...