Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsWindows VistaWindows XPWindows MeWindows 98Windows 95Virtual PCInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressWindows MediaSecurity
Related Topics
MS Server ProductsMS OfficePC HardwareMore Topics ...

Windows Forum / Windows 98 / General Topics / February 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

why is scandisk with undo so slow?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
efffemm@f-m.fm - 18 Feb 2007 23:34 GMT
I have a dual boot PC, and yesterday it wouldn't boot at all in
Win2000,
and almost boots Win98, but says some files are missing and then dies.
So I get the Windows 98 DOS boot disk and run SCANDISK on C:
It tells me the FATs are different, there are corrupt directories and
crosslinked files, all-round disaster.  Then it wants an undo disk
so I put in floppy. The head is grinding away for about an hour,
then floppy is full. So I put in another and another, and by the
evening I am up to 7 undo disks.
So I am curious why this is so slow. Why is the floppy disk drive
going continuously while SCANDISK runs? It's only a 2 GB partition;
I would hate to do this on a bigger disk.
I guess my C: partition is so stuffed, I should reinstal all that
was on C:  and forget about undo disks.
BTW I also ran Seagate disk diagnostics, and it found no hardware
fault with drive. Also the D,E & F partitions had no file structure
problems.
Jeff Richards - 19 Feb 2007 09:15 GMT
Scandisk won't fix the disk.  It might fix the file system, but the 'fix'
might be worse than the problem, and in any case it won't succeed if the
disk is still faulty.

Undo simply enables you to restore the drive to the unfixed state, and since
you already know that's no good, there's not much point.  The slowness is
probably Scandisk re-reading the sectors to try and get them to come out
right.

If the drive is not faulty then perhaps the problem was a corrupted
parameter table of some sort, which can lead the OS (and scandisk) into
thinking that the drive is completely screwed.  Since you have let Scandisk
write to the disk while it was in that state, a fresh start is probably the
only option.
Signature

Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

>I have a dual boot PC, and yesterday it wouldn't boot at all in
> Win2000,
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> fault with drive. Also the D,E & F partitions had no file structure
> problems.
MEB - 19 Feb 2007 19:57 GMT
| I have a dual boot PC, and yesterday it wouldn't boot at all in
| Win2000,
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
| fault with drive. Also the D,E & F partitions had no file structure
| problems.

Not sure why you would attempt a Scandisk undo anyway, though likely that's
not the issue you should be addressing or how it should be [have been]
addressed. Unless your an expert at disk and file recovery, the files
created are essentially useless.

Scandisk uses the MBR and fat tables during its disk review. If both or
either of those become corrupted then the disk APPEARS to be corrupted,
hence endless read, re-writes, fat creations, creations of recovery files,
and more failures because of the mis-matches.
You state Seagate's tool found no hardware fault with the target drive:
good, then that means your issue likely does not mean disk failure.
Moreover, you state your other drives/partitions show no file structure
problems, meaning the issue is localized to c: drive/partition. That also
appears to indicate that its not related to memory errors, or other BIOS or
hardware issues.

Had you NOT tried the Scandisk with undo, it might have been possible to
correct the errors by re-instituting a good MBR and fat. Now that is likely
impossible. It still might be useful to try though, perhaps allowing
recovery of some files that might be irreplaceable, though it is generally
recommended to stop accessing the drive/partition until you create a
complete plan for recovery.

You could still try a real recovery tool such as testdisk, HDAT2, or other,
and try a recovery; though again, the undo used and your indication of
re-writes might have negated even that. Fats will not match, nor will actual
file locations on the drive/partition. If it is possible to get to another
usable OS on your computer, or another computer in which you could install
that drive, then recovery could [might]possibly effected.

The short is:
Scandisk is a useful tool for "indications" of issues, and somewhat useful
for correcting minor issues related to improper shutdowns, but for real work
on a drive, IMO, it is best to diagnose the causal issue and use some other
tool for the correction.

Having used now Scandisk with undo, you may now have to wipe that
drive/partition [after recovering what files you can] and re-install
whatever was there. Moreover, the apparent dual boot issue [boot
management], will require special handling related thereto.

Determine exactly what you would like to accomplish, post what that is and
how you intend to accomplish that, and attempts to help address/achieve that
will be provided by the group.

Signature

MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if
nothing had happen."  Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) - 23 Feb 2007 11:39 GMT
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:57:55 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not real@hotmail.com>
><efffemm@f-m.fm> wrote in message

>| I have a dual boot PC, and yesterday it wouldn't boot at all in
>| Win2000,
>| and almost boots Win98, but says some files are missing and then dies.

Which files are missing?

>| So I get the Windows 98 DOS boot disk and run SCANDISK on C:
>| It tells me the FATs are different

See http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/scandisk.htm

Mismatched FAT is a SERIOUS issue!

Step back and ask yourself why this sort of rare file system carnage
has happened, and approach as per...

http://cquirke.mvps.org/pccrisis.htm

...i.e.:
 - disconnect all HDs
 - check RAM for 24 hours, replace until defect free
 - check motherboard caps, fans, etc
 - do not proceed until 24 hrs MemTest with no errors, resets, hangs

Only now, connect HD but DO NOT LET IT BOOT.  Check the file FATxx
systems from DOS diskette boot and DOS mode Scandisk (must be Win95
SR2, Win98 or later, for LFN and FAT32 support).

Given you have a mismatched FAT error, I would not allow Scandisk to
fix anything, and I'd proceed to data recovery as per...

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/recovery.htm

...which is a terse overview that would be of value to techs with
general skills who don't have particular data recovery skills.

Specific approach for mis-matched FAT:
 - copy data off HD as-is (recovery set 1)
 - DiskEdit, save both copies of FAT off HD somewhere
   - paste FAT1 over FAT2
 - copy data off HD as-is (recovery set 2)
 - DiskEdit, copy backup of FAT2 over FAT1 and FAT2
 - copy data off HD as-is (recovery set 3)
 - DiskEdit, copy backup of FAT1 over FAT1
   - now go through both FAT, working on matching sectors
   - copy obvious sane over insane
   - where not obvious which is sane, copy FAT1 over FAT2
 - copy data off HD as-is (recovery set 4)
 - DiskEdit, copy backups of FAT1 over FAT1, FAT2 over FAT2
   - again, go through both FAT, working on matching sectors
   - copy obvious sane over insane
   - where not obvious which is sane, copy FAT2 over FAT1
 - copy data off HD as-is (recovery set 5)

You'd expect set 4 or 5 to be best, but sometimes it will be set 1.
Sometimes some files will be valid from one set, others from another.

>| there are corrupt directories and crosslinked files, all-round disaster.  

Ask yourself WHY, suspecting flaky hardware.  Don't allow anything to
write to the drive, and especially don't try to run any Windows (they
all puke temp and swap all over the place, all the time) until you are
COAB certain you've fixed the hardware.

>| Then it wants an undo disk so I put in floppy.

Yep... this doesn't work very well.  Diskettes are slow, flaky, and
tiny, so the ability to Undo is not certain.

Rather run Scandisk and DON'T FIX ANYTHING, to get an idea of how bad
it is.  As it's indeed very bad, your priority changes to:
 - excluding causes for this mayhem, i.e. flaky hware
 - getting your files off
 - only then, "fixing" the file system
 - then excluding and killing malware
 - only then, getting Windows to run again.

>| So I am curious why this is so slow. Why is the floppy disk drive
>| going continuously while SCANDISK runs? It's only a 2 GB partition

Diskette is 1.44M - so do the maths.  The FAT alone will be bigger
than that, in many cases.

>| BTW I also ran Seagate disk diagnostics, and it found no hardware
>| fault with drive. Also the D,E & F partitions had no file structure
>| problems.

OK.  How's the RAM?

>Moreover, you state your other drives/partitions show no file structure
>problems, meaning the issue is localized to c: drive/partition. That also
>appears to indicate that its not related to memory errors, or other BIOS or
>hardware issues.

Not really - 90% of writes will be on C:, so that's the biggest slice
of the dart board that will be hit by bad RAM etc.  This is a big
reason why one keeps data off C:

It's either flaky hardware such as RAM etc., or a deliberate malware
payload.  Simple bad exits don't usually cause that sort of file
system damage; that would usually be restricted to...
 - lost cluster chains
 - incorrect free space
 - incorrect file length
...etc. without mismatched FATs, cross-links, bad media descriptor,
etc.  Really buggy sware (as in, secondary damage from installing
through bad RAM, for example) get get that wild too, and the effect
may persist after the original harware issue is fixed.

> Had you NOT tried the Scandisk with undo, it might have been possible to
>correct the errors by re-instituting a good MBR and fat.

Nope.  FAT is highly dynamic; any "old" FAT is too old to use.  One
Windows disk burp invalidates it... this is one case where repair
trumps backup (i.e. backup of the FATs).  See above.

>--------------- ---- --- -- -  -   -     -
   Saws are too hard to use.  
   Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- -  -   -     -
MEB - 24 Feb 2007 07:36 GMT
| On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:57:55 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not real@hotmail.com>
| ><efffemm@f-m.fm> wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
|     - where not obvious which is sane, copy FAT2 over FAT1
|   - copy data off HD as-is (recovery set 5)

Just use testdisk if scandisk burps [shows errors], extended search for
other partitions [the second] overwrite the bad. Use MHDD and/or HDAT2 for
additional tests/fixes. At least that gives a workable drive to recover
from. Then pull your favorite recovery tool and begin the process.

Saves a lot of time unless your trying to learn something or make some kind
of statement..
But then this is a common error many make, using Microsoft's tools..
Personally I think the days of suggesting Microsoft tools for usage in 98
are over, and have been for a considerable number of years. Moreover, as
Microsoft no longer supplies support, it hardly makes sense to continue to
recommend them.

| You'd expect set 4 or 5 to be best, but sometimes it will be set 1.
| Sometimes some files will be valid from one set, others from another.
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
| of the dart board that will be hit by bad RAM etc.  This is a big
| reason why one keeps data off C:

Ah, its dual boot, think we should ask the QUERIER how the system is setup
before we run all over ourselves, directing and presuming  things which
might not be applicable..

I've been waiting for a reply concerning the recover plan... my guess is it
was reformatted..

| It's either flaky hardware such as RAM etc., or a deliberate malware
| payload.  Simple bad exits don't usually cause that sort of file
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
| through bad RAM, for example) get get that wild too, and the effect
| may persist after the original harware issue is fixed.

Could be memory , but I think you've overlooked the fact that scandisk was
already run with undo, meaning supposedly fixing things by GUESSING what's
what..... a little late for much of anything good to come of this..
Could also have been some malware or virus, or electrical malfunction, or
just one of those famous Microsoft crapouts..

But yeah, SRTSP, check the potential variables.

Moreover, as I indicated, querier needed to prepare a recovery plan,, and
run it by the group.

| > Had you NOT tried the Scandisk with undo, it might have been possible to
| >correct the errors by re-instituting a good MBR and fat.
|
| Nope.  FAT is highly dynamic; any "old" FAT is too old to use.  One
| Windows disk burp invalidates it... this is one case where repair
| trumps backup (i.e. backup of the FATs).  See above.

So was that for him or supposedly for me?

Myself, I'd have pulled out testdisk [and a few other programs for double
check] and seen what was found and fixable, and used WINHEX to verify... but
that's just me.. my days of making things more difficult than they need to
be are over,,,  your welcome to do what you wish...

So your still what, recommending the querier use scandisk? Or what's your
recommended tool or group of tools? I'm missing something here.

| >--------------- ---- --- -- -  -   -     -
|     Saws are too hard to use.
|     Be easier to use!
| >--------------- ---- --- -- -  -   -     -

So that's what you've been doing huh, making new pages and updating?

Signature

MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if
nothing had happen."  Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) - 24 Feb 2007 18:53 GMT
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:36:33 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not real@hotmail.com>
>"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in
>| On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:57:55 -0500, "MEB"
>| ><efffemm@f-m.fm> wrote in message

>| >| I have a dual boot PC, and yesterday it wouldn't boot at all in
>| >| Win2000, almost boots Win98, but says some files are missing
>| >| So I get the Windows 98 DOS boot disk and run SCANDISK on C:
>| >| It tells me the FATs are different

>| .. ask why this sort of rare file system carnage has happened
>|   - disconnect all HDs
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>other partitions [the second] overwrite the bad. Use MHDD and/or HDAT2 for
>additional tests/fixes.

I don't know those tools; let's see if Google does... ah!

http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk_Download

http://hddguru.com/content/en/software/2005.10.02-MHDD/

http://www.hdat2.com/download.html

These look like partition finders, physical HD checkers and the last
has a bit of file system savvy.  Partition finding I usually do during
a DiskEdit session, and for physical HD checking I'm in love with HD
Tune (run from Bart).  I'm used to DiskEdit, and prefer to see what
I'm doing, so I'd prolly use that rather than any sort of auto-fixing
file system repair tools.  

There's one feature I like in the stuff you've recommended; the
ability to retest and reclaim bad clusters.  I'd use that in only one
context; cleaning up a file system that's been imaged froma  dying HD
to a good new one, so I can be sure the "bad" clusters are OK.

>At least that gives a workable drive to recover from.

I like to keep an Undo trail, and recover data in various ways, as
described, rather than have some tool guess which FAT is correct and
commit to that for recovery with no other options.

> Saves a lot of time unless your trying to learn something or make some kind
>of statement..

No, just hedging bets.  Some of these tools follow logic that assumes
a particular kind of problem, and cuts cross-grain when some other
problem is in effect.  Some problems are easiest to detect by simply
eyeballing the FAT, which can make a long story short.

> But then this is a common error many make, using Microsoft's tools..

The only MS tool I'm using here, is DOS mode Scandisk as an initial
assessment.  Everything else - HD Tune, BING, DiskEdit from ye olde
Norton Utilities 95 - is 3rd-party.  Alas, DiskEdit isn't free.

>| OK.  How's the RAM?
>|
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>| of the dart board that will be hit by bad RAM etc.  This is a big
>| reason why one keeps data off C:

> Ah, its dual boot, think we should ask the QUERIER how the system is setup
>before we run all over ourselves, directing and presuming  things which
>might not be applicable..

The poster's already presuming the hardware's OK, happily banging away
writing to ?failing HD through the lens of ?bad RAM, etc.  

Until you know the hardware status, dual (or "duel boot") boot doesn't
even begin to get relevant.

>| It's either flaky hardware such as RAM etc., or a deliberate malware
>| payload.  Simple bad exits don't usually cause that sort of file
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>| through bad RAM, for example) get get that wild too, and the effect
>| may persist after the original harware issue is fixed.

> Could be memory , but I think you've overlooked the fact that scandisk was
>already run with undo, meaning supposedly fixing things by GUESSING what's
>what..... a little late for much of anything good to come of this..

It gets trickier, the deeper they dig.  Still, one can often get most
stuff back.

> Could also have been some malware or virus, or electrical malfunction, or
>just one of those famous Microsoft crapouts..

That's the point; "just one of those Microsoft crapouts" doesn't do
this, or very rarely - i.e. maybe 1 for every 100 malware payloads or
bad hardware.  MS auto-fixers will make a bad situation worse, but in
ways that appear to improve the health of the file system (by filing
away the cues that indicate corruption) while the actual contents of
the files - the user's property, IOW - are irreversibly trashed.

If the HD is > 137G and one of the dual-booting OSs is XP SP1 or
older, then sure, you may well see carnage, but unless the FATs
overlie the 137G border, they won't mismatch unless some wraparound
effect barfs all over them.  

> But yeah, SRTSP, check the potential variables.

What's SRTSP?

>| > Had you NOT tried the Scandisk with undo, it might have been possible to
>| >correct the errors by re-instituting a good MBR and fat.

>| Nope.  FAT is highly dynamic; any "old" FAT is too old to use.  One
>| Windows disk burp invalidates it... this is one case where repair
>| trumps backup (i.e. backup of the FATs).  See above.

> So was that for him or supposedly for me?

I dunno who said "re-instituting a good MBR and fat", but I was
commenting on the concept of a "good FAT".  There ain't no such thing;
if it's a previous FAT, it's invalid.  Unless you stop all writes to
the file system, as one does during a recovery session, you cannot
backup the FAT and splat it back and expect things to work - you may
get an error-free file system, but file contents could be garbage.

> So your still what, recommending the querier use scandisk? Or what's your
>recommended tool or group of tools? I'm missing something here.

I'd use, in this order:
 - MemTest86 boot with HD disconnected, 24 hours
 - HD tested in known-good system using HD Tune from Bart CDR boot
 - DO NOT ALLOW HD TO BOOT IN ARBITRARY SYSTEM!
 - file recovery as-is from Bart CDR boot
 - if < 137G FATxx, test file system from DOS mode Scandisk
 - if hard-core errors, recover data as described using DiskEdit etc.

I'd use Bart as the OS, rather than XP or Win9x, as it doesn't
initiate writes to HDs as Windows will inevitably do.

If it's an old Win9x PC with < 32M RAM etc. I'd prolly do the recovery
from DOS mode, using Odi's LFN Tools.  One Odi LCopy command can
evacuate an entire HD volume with LFNs preserved, stepping over errors
without getting bogged down.  LCopy's a sweetie   ;-)

I'm very selective about what I'd let Scandisk "fix", baling out as
soon as I see what I consider to be too hairy to auto-fix.  Same thing
with HD diags; if you see one bad sector, you've got what you came
for, so bale out and get data recoverin', rather than beating the sick
HD to death to complete the diagnostics report.

Thanks for them tool recomendations!

>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - -  -    -
  The most accurate diagnostic instrument
   in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - -  -    -
MEB - 25 Feb 2007 08:27 GMT
| On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:36:33 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not real@hotmail.com>
| >"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
| I'm doing, so I'd prolly use that rather than any sort of auto-fixing
| file system repair tools.

But you know [or somewhat know] what your doing, remember we are here to
help those who may not know or even need to know [because they could care
less they just want their system fixed] about all the technical details..

| There's one feature I like in the stuff you've recommended; the
| ability to retest and reclaim bad clusters.  I'd use that in only one
| context; cleaning up a file system that's been imaged froma  dying HD
| to a good new one, so I can be sure the "bad" clusters are OK.

Then you may like this little hard drive imaging prog:
http://damien.guibouret.free.fr/en/index.html - Partition Saving - imaging
program

| >At least that gives a workable drive to recover from.
|
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
| assessment.  Everything else - HD Tune, BING, DiskEdit from ye olde
| Norton Utilities 95 - is 3rd-party.  Alas, DiskEdit isn't free.

Nor is WinHex.. I've yet to find a really good free editor..

| >| OK.  How's the RAM?
| >|
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
| Until you know the hardware status, dual (or "duel boot") boot doesn't
| even begin to get relevant.

Good play on words there, exactly right deuling boots... hehe

But here your presuming something unknown, the querier could just as easily
have accessed the drive from another OS and screwed something up on their
own... we know little of what occurred.

| >| It's either flaky hardware such as RAM etc., or a deliberate malware
| >| payload.  Simple bad exits don't usually cause that sort of file
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
| It gets trickier, the deeper they dig.  Still, one can often get most
| stuff back.

Agreed, but then the querier never returned, or asked for recovery
software, of which I could have suggested several.

| > Could also have been some malware or virus, or electrical malfunction, or
| >just one of those famous Microsoft crapouts..
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
| overlie the 137G border, they won't mismatch unless some wraparound
| effect barfs all over them.

WOW, shall we go to NTFS again,, oh boy, maybe this time we can actually
finish..

| > But yeah, SRTSP, check the potential variables.
|
| What's SRTSP?

Standard Repair Technician Servicing Procedures

| >| > Had you NOT tried the Scandisk with undo, it might have been possible to
| >| >correct the errors by re-instituting a good MBR and fat.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
| backup the FAT and splat it back and expect things to work - you may
| get an error-free file system, but file contents could be garbage.

That was the point of what I presented. Did you read that post with
comprehension? Try again.

| > So your still what, recommending the querier use scandisk? Or what's your
| >recommended tool or group of tools? I'm missing something here.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
|     in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
| >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - -  -    -

I'll leave the above for posterity,, you seem to have forgotten that the
querier had already trashed the disk, had no backed up fats, and used a tool
that at best was designed to APPEAR to provide a function to keep users
believing Microsoft was providing for its consumers. And hey, it functioned
well, or at least it does for those who are trained to constantly
re-formatting and re-installing...
Had there been true memory problems then likely the other OS area would
also have shown some type of damage... however, it seems we'll never know
now..

So what I presented, in contrast to this lengthy whatever you've posted,
was the short answer that was required.
Had I wanted to write a treatise, I certainly could have, but the poor
querier would likely have spent several days asking questions. and ended up
re-formatting anyway.

Right, check out the tools, I have used them for awhile now, posted them in
this News Group of and on for almost a year, you'll like them because you
can just about recommend them to anyone. No knowledge of disk hex editing,
hard drive diagnostic routines, or other required....

By the way cquirke, nice to have ya back... perhaps we'll discuss some
things in the future..

Signature

MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if
nothing had happen."  Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) - 26 Feb 2007 11:25 GMT
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:27:02 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not real@hotmail.com>
>"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org>
>| On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:36:33 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not real@hotmail.com>
>| >"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in
>| >| On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:57:55 -0500, "MEB"

> But you know [or somewhat know] what your doing, remember we are here to
>help those who may not know or even need to know [because they could care
>less they just want their system fixed] about all the technical details..

Well, they can't safely come right, so perhaps the thing to tell them
is to stop making things worse and hire better-tuned frontals.

>| There's one feature I like in the stuff you've recommended; the
>| ability to retest and reclaim bad clusters.  I'd use that in only one
>| context; cleaning up a file system that's been imaged froma  dying HD
>| to a good new one, so I can be sure the "bad" clusters are OK.

> Then you may like this little hard drive imaging prog:
>http://damien.guibouret.free.fr/en/index.html - Partition Saving - imaging
>program

Cool!  Laater   ;-)

>| DiskEdit isn't free.

> Nor is WinHex.. I've yet to find a really good free editor..

Yep.  I have a rough-and-ready from Roadkil that works from Windows or
Bart, and there's a good binary file editor added to my Bart as well.
I've hardly used the latter, but Roadkil's has been handy.

>| What's SRTSP?
>
> Standard Repair Technician Servicing Procedures

OK...

>| I dunno who said "re-instituting a good MBR and fat", but I was
>| commenting on the concept of a "good FAT".  There ain't no such thing;
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> That was the point of what I presented. Did you read that post with
>comprehension? Try again.

I've forgotton which post it was, and I came to this thread when it
was several Re's deep.  Never saw the original post.

> Right, check out the tools, I have used them for awhile now, posted them in
>this News Group of and on for almost a year, you'll like them because you
>can just about recommend them to anyone. No knowledge of disk hex editing,
>hard drive diagnostic routines, or other required....

> By the way cquirke, nice to have ya back... perhaps we'll discuss some
>things in the future..

Thanks!  It's good to be back   ;-)

>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- -  -    -
  Who is General Failure and
  why is he reading my disk?
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- -  -    -
MEB - 26 Feb 2007 15:51 GMT
| On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:27:02 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not real@hotmail.com>
| >"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
| Bart, and there's a good binary file editor added to my Bart as well.
| I've hardly used the latter, but Roadkil's has been handy.

My turn to thank you for the prog,, I'll test this one sometime in the
future..

| >| What's SRTSP?
| >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
|    why is he reading my disk?
| >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- -  -    -

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if
nothing had happen."  Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.