Corrupt NTFS filesystem
Citizen Bob
NTFS Filesystem, I think I finally fixed it.
I am running Win2K which was built from an InPlace Upgrade of a
previous installation of Win2K in another computer, which was built
from a previous installation of NT4 in yet another computer. The
original NT4 was first installed in the first part of 1997, so this
current version of Win2K traces back 10 years.
I know, I should reinstall Win2K from scratch. But I refuse to do it
because 1) I have close to 100 installed applications, many of which I
do not even recall the customizations. It would take months to
reinstall all that software to the same configuration I now have; 2) I
refuse to cave in to the absurd demands of Windows having to be
reinstalled every 6 months just because MS won't spend the money to
fix it. Maybe I will install Vista from scratch, but not XP or Win2K.
So I have no choice but to work around the many problems that a 10
year old installation of Win NT and its spawn have to offer. This one,
the corrupt NTFS filesystem problem, has been plaguing me for over a
year. If I reboot Win2K and run it normally for over 1 day, when I
reboot I find either CHKDSK wants to run or once in a while I get a
BSOD. In every instance but one, I have been able to recover the
corrupted disk by mounting it as D: and running CHKDSK D: /f on it.
All sorts of crap fills the screen - stuff about broken files all over
the place, mostly having to do with security descriptors and empty
space in the MFT.
So I think I may have fixed this fiasco - no more "corrupt NTFS
filesystem". Do you really want to know how I did it?
I converted to a FAT32 filesystem, and guess what - no more corrupt
NTFS filesystem. Pretty cool, eh.
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
Rod Speed
> For those who have been following this tortured saga
> of the Corrupt NTFS Filesystem, I think I finally fixed it.
> I am running Win2K which was built from an InPlace Upgrade
> of a previous installation of Win2K in another computer, which
> was built from a previous installation of NT4 in yet another
> computer. The original NT4 was first installed in the first part
> of 1997, so this current version of Win2K traces back 10 years.
Urk.
> I know, I should reinstall Win2K from scratch. But I refuse to do
> it because 1) I have close to 100 installed applications, many of
> which I do not even recall the customizations. It would take months
> to reinstall all that software to the same configuration I now have;
Fine.
> 2) I refuse to cave in to the absurd demands of Windows having to be
> reinstalled every 6 months just because MS won't spend the money to fix it.
That isnt true of either 2K or XP.
> Maybe I will install Vista from scratch, but not XP or Win2K.
XP has a files and settings transfer wizard
which should bring the config stuff across fine.
> So I have no choice but to work around the many problems that
> a 10 year old installation of Win NT and its spawn have to offer.
That is just plain wrong, you do have a choice.
> This one, the corrupt NTFS filesystem problem,
> has been plaguing me for over a year.
And if you had done your backups properly, you could have
stepped back to the copy you had before the problem showed up.
> If I reboot Win2K and run it normally for over 1 day, when I reboot
> I find either CHKDSK wants to run or once in a while I get a BSOD.
> In every instance but one, I have been able to recover the corrupted
> disk by mounting it as D: and running CHKDSK D: /f on it. All sorts of
> crap fills the screen - stuff about broken files all over the place, mostly
> having to do with security descriptors and empty space in the MFT.
> So I think I may have fixed this fiasco - no more "corrupt NTFS
> filesystem". Do you really want to know how I did it?
> I converted to a FAT32 filesystem, and guess what
> - no more corrupt NTFS filesystem. Pretty cool, eh.
You'll likely find that if you convert it back to NTFS now it will be fine too.
meow...@care2.com
> I know, I should reinstall Win2K from scratch. But I refuse to do it
> because 1) I have close to 100 installed applications, many of which I
> do not even recall the customizations. It would take months to
> reinstall all that software to the same configuration I now have;
instead you're a year down the line.
> So I think I may have fixed this fiasco - no more "corrupt NTFS
> filesystem". Do you really want to know how I did it?
>
> I converted to a FAT32 filesystem, and guess what - no more corrupt
> NTFS filesystem. Pretty cool, eh.
Yes, and it works the other way round too. FAT32 has some strange
issues, so if/when they surface you can convert back to ntfs :)
NT
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>XP has a files and settings transfer wizard
>which should bring the config stuff across fine.
If you mean the User Profiles, then I can do that with Win2K.
But will this transfer wizard also copy registry settings for
installed applications? If not then I would have to reinstall nearly
100 apps.
If this transfer wizard is just an IPU, then it will copy the
contaminated parts of the Registry.
>> So I have no choice but to work around the many problems that
>> a 10 year old installation of Win NT and its spawn have to offer.
>That is just plain wrong, you do have a choice.
I am interested. Please expand. My son runs XP Pro so I can have him
research anything you comment on before I try it.
>> This one, the corrupt NTFS filesystem problem,
>> has been plaguing me for over a year.
>And if you had done your backups properly, you could have
>stepped back to the copy you had before the problem showed up.
I did not implement the backup procedure until the problems arose. I
learned my lesson - I will *always* have a backup/restore plan
implemented. When we depended on computers in business we ran a daily
backup. But I am at home and this is not mission critical.
In defense of my laxness, I can tell you that I never had serious
problems with either NT4 or the previous installations of Win2K. It
was this last installation that screwed things up.
You mentioned that I should have had a backup before I installed that
RAID application, which is high on my list of things that likely
caused the problems I had with NTFS corruption. However I persevered
with that app for about 6 months because the factory was working with
me to fix some other problems. It is very unlikely I would have kept a
backup that long, since it would have tied up a hard disk. I suppose I
could have zipped it and laid it off on DVDs but I did not think it
was necessary.
>> I converted to a FAT32 filesystem, and guess what
>> - no more corrupt NTFS filesystem. Pretty cool, eh.
>You'll likely find that if you convert it back to NTFS now it will be fine too.
I thought about that. However I do not see why I should use NTFS when
FAT 32 is working. I can't think of any substantive reason to use NTFS
in my configuration. I have a simple two-computer LAN using a NAT
router and even though I have nearly 100 installed apps, none of them
appears to require NTFS. IOW, I do not believe I need the features of
NTFS in my simple configuration. But because I am curious, I may go
back to NTFS just to see what will happen.
However, even with FAT 32, I still get two device drivers per
partition in NT Defrag and Perfect Disk. If you load NT Defrag, how
many devices do you see per partition? I asked my son to check his XP
intallation, but he is too busy making money. I have to catch him
sitting in front of his machine.
Citizen Bob
>FAT32 has some strange issues,
I have never used FAT32 on NT. What are some of those issues?
Citizen Bob
>FAT32 has some strange issues
What is the maximum file size with FAT32?
VWWall
> On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow...@care2.com wrote:
>
>> FAT32 has some strange issues
>
> What is the maximum file size with FAT32?
4GB minus two bytes.
--
Virg Wall, P.E.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> XP has a files and settings transfer wizard
>> which should bring the config stuff across fine.
> If you mean the User Profiles,
Nope.
> then I can do that with Win2K.
2K doesnt have the files and settings transfer wizard. Thats its name.
> But will this transfer wizard also copy
> registry settings for installed applications?
Yes.
> If not then I would have to reinstall nearly 100 apps.
You do have to reinstall them, but it copys the settings/config data across.
> If this transfer wizard is just an IPU,
It isnt.
> then it will copy the contaminated parts of the Registry.
>>> So I have no choice but to work around the many problems that
>>> a 10 year old installation of Win NT and its spawn have to offer.
>> That is just plain wrong, you do have a choice.
> I am interested. Please expand.
I already did.
> My son runs XP Pro so I can have him research
> anything you comment on before I try it.
Have a look at the files and settings transfer wizard.
>>> This one, the corrupt NTFS filesystem problem,
>>> has been plaguing me for over a year.
>> And if you had done your backups properly, you could have
>> stepped back to the copy you had before the problem showed up.
> I did not implement the backup procedure until the problems arose.
> I learned my lesson - I will *always* have a backup/restore plan
> implemented. When we depended on computers in business we
> ran a daily backup. But I am at home and this is not mission critical.
Doesnt need to be 'mission critical', proper backups would
have avoided farting around for a year trying to fix that problem.
> In defense of my laxness, I can tell you that I never had serious
> problems with either NT4 or the previous installations of Win2K.
Thats as silly as saying that you havent had any
hardware die, so you dont need any backups.
> It was this last installation that screwed things up.
It always is.
> You mentioned that I should have had a backup before I installed
> that RAID application, which is high on my list of things that likely
> caused the problems I had with NTFS corruption. However I persevered
> with that app for about 6 months because the factory was working with
> me to fix some other problems. It is very unlikely I would have kept a
> backup that long, since it would have tied up a hard disk.
You should have done that if it had a problem.
> I suppose I could have zipped it and laid it off
> on DVDs but I did not think it was necessary.
And now you know that it was.
>>> I converted to a FAT32 filesystem, and guess what
>>> - no more corrupt NTFS filesystem. Pretty cool, eh.
>> You'll likely find that if you convert it back to NTFS now it will be fine too.
> I thought about that. However I do not see why I should use NTFS when FAT 32
> is working. can't think of any substantive reason to use NTFS in my configuration.
The main reason is that FAT32 cant handle files over 4GB and once you start
using a digital TV tuner card, you will generate files much bigger than that.
> I have a simple two-computer LAN using a NAT router and even though
> I have nearly 100 installed apps, none of them appears to require NTFS.
> IOW, I do not believe I need the features of NTFS in my simple configuration.
You're wrong.
> But because I am curious, I may go back to NTFS just to see what will happen.
> However, even with FAT 32, I still get two device drivers per partition
THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.
> in NT Defrag and Perfect Disk. If you load NT Defrag,
> how many devices do you see per partition?
Cant readily try that, I run XP on everything.
With the Disk Defragmenter in XP I have just one entry per partition.
> I asked my son to check his XP intallation, but he is too busy
> making money. I have to catch him sitting in front of his machine.
You should chain him to the machine.
meow...@care2.com
> 4GB minus two bytes.
FAT32 max partition size is 30G, which is its biggest limitation. NTFS
is a much more secure and reliable fs as well as being more fully
featured. Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
50% of the time tis works... and 50% of the time you lose data. NTFS
has 3 copies, so this problem doesnt happen. FAT has no password
security system, ntfs does, so fat is 100% accessible to viri and any
user.
Maybe you dont need the features of ntfs and fat32's limitations arent
a problem. FAT32 does give more OS options than ntfs, handy if dual
booting, running dos apps, or swapping discs with winDOS systems.
NT
VWWall
> VWWall wrote:
>> Citizen Bob wrote:
>>> On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow...@care2.com wrote:
>
>>>> FAT32 has some strange issues
>
>>> What is the maximum file size with FAT32?
>
>> 4GB minus two bytes.
>
> FAT32 max partition size is 30G, which is its biggest limitation.
Using WindowsXP, it won't let you create a partition larger than 32G.
Formatted elsewhere, larger FAT32 partitions work fine in WindowsXP.
FAT32 can support a maximum disk size of approximately 8 terabytes
> Maybe you dont need the features of ntfs and fat32's limitations arent
> a problem. FAT32 does give more OS options than ntfs, handy if dual
> booting, running dos apps, or swapping discs with winDOS systems.
--
Virg Wall, P.E.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>> What is the maximum file size with FAT32?
>4GB minus two bytes.
Uh oh.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, even with FAT 32, I still get two device drivers per partition
>THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.
Then why am I seeing two entries per partition n NT Defrag and Perfect
Disk, but not My computer or Disk Management?
>> in NT Defrag and Perfect Disk. If you load NT Defrag,
>> how many devices do you see per partition?
>
>Cant readily try that, I run XP on everything.
I meant the degragger for XP.
>With the Disk Defragmenter in XP I have just one entry per partition.
Then there is obviously something really weird going on with my
installation, whether the filesystem is NTFS or FAT32.
>> I asked my son to check his XP intallation, but he is too busy
>> making money. I have to catch him sitting in front of his machine.
>You should chain him to the machine.
Then he would not make as much money as he does. He is an independent
residential mortgage broker and every time he puts his phone to his
ear, he makes money.
VWWall
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:57:15 GMT, VWWall <vw...@DEADearthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> What is the maximum file size with FAT32?
>
>> 4GB minus two bytes.
>
> Uh oh.
Uh yes--unless you want to argue about one byte!
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463
<quote>
You cannot create a file larger than (2^32)-1 bytes (this is one byte
less than 4 GB) on a FAT32 partition.
</quote>
Other Microsoft sources say "4 GB minus 2 bytes". Take your pick!
> "...Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."
Applies particularly to Microsoft articles! :-)
--
Virg Wall
kony
>VWWall wrote:
>> Citizen Bob wrote:
>> > On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow...@care2.com wrote:
>
>> >> FAT32 has some strange issues
>
>> > What is the maximum file size with FAT32?
>
>> 4GB minus two bytes.
>
>FAT32 max partition size is 30G, which is its biggest limitation. NTFS
>is a much more secure and reliable fs as well as being more fully
>featured.
This is generally untrue.
UNLESS you set encryption or permissions, NTFS gains nothing
security wise. Maybe he would, but the security is not
better just because of NTFS.
As for reliability, not really. The vast majority of
problems with FAT32, would effect NTFS as well.
>Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
>they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
If you have errors, fix the problem.
>50% of the time tis works... and 50% of the time you lose data. NTFS
>has 3 copies, so this problem doesnt happen. FAT has no password
>security system, ntfs does, so fat is 100% accessible to viri and any
>user.
Where does a virus tend to put itself? OS partition. Are
you seriously claiming everyone with NTFS on Winxp, has
never had a virus on their OS partition?
>
>Maybe you dont need the features of ntfs and fat32's limitations arent
>a problem. FAT32 does give more OS options than ntfs, handy if dual
>booting, running dos apps, or swapping discs with winDOS systems.
I'm not suggesting FAT32 is better than NTFS, but
practically speaking everyone repeats the marketing blurb
you did, too, without really considering the application,
whether it'll matter.
kony
wrote:
>I know, I should reinstall Win2K from scratch. But I refuse to do it
>because 1) I have close to 100 installed applications, many of which I
>do not even recall the customizations. It would take months to
>reinstall all that software to the same configuration I now have; 2) I
>refuse to cave in to the absurd demands of Windows having to be
>reinstalled every 6 months just because MS won't spend the money to
>fix it. Maybe I will install Vista from scratch, but not XP or Win2K.
Again you are being silly.
There is no more reason to install Vista from scratch than
Win2k. There is no reason to install win2k every six
months, but rather what WAS ALREADY TOLD TO YOU.
Do a clean Win2k install. Did anyone suggest "reinstall
every 6 months"? No. You need to focus on what WAS
written, not on wild presumptions.
So you have a lot of apps installed? So what? Think
nobody else does? All you have to do is make a clean
installation, export the appropriate registry keys and copy
over the installation folders and shortcuts for the start
menu. Will it work 100% of the time? No, there will be a
few things that need more attention, but since nobody was
suggesting you just delete your entire existing
installation, it's not as though this information is
suddenly gone and can't be referred to, to get any rogue
apps working.
Something else you can do is compare the clean
installation's system and driver files to your old one- the
apps should not need special drivers in most cases, save for
a few dealing with specific hardware.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> However, even with FAT 32, I still get two device drivers per partition
>> THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.
> Then why am I seeing two entries per partition n NT Defrag
> and Perfect Disk, but not My computer or Disk Management?
They are getting confused by something. It isnt currently clear by what.
>>> in NT Defrag and Perfect Disk. If you load NT Defrag,
>>> how many devices do you see per partition?
>> Cant readily try that, I run XP on everything.
> I meant the degragger for XP.
>> With the Disk Defragmenter in XP I have just one entry per partition.
> Then there is obviously something really weird going on with
> my installation, whether the filesystem is NTFS or FAT32.
Yes, but since you that showed up after the stupid raid
system was installed, its almost certainly been done by that.
>>> I asked my son to check his XP intallation, but he is too busy
>>> making money. I have to catch him sitting in front of his machine.
>> You should chain him to the machine.
> Then he would not make as much money as he does.
True. There are always some downsides.
> He is an independent residential mortgage broker and
> every time he puts his phone to his ear, he makes money.
Just get him a cordless phone so he can still do that even when chained to the PC.
Rod Speed
> VWWall wrote
>> Citizen Bob wrote
>>>> FAT32 has some strange issues
>>> What is the maximum file size with FAT32?
>> 4GB minus two bytes.
> FAT32 max partition size is 30G,
Nope. XP wont create one bigger than that but it
works fine if you use something else to create it.
> which is its biggest limitation.
Nope, the biggest limitation is actually the 4G file size limit.
> NTFS is a much more secure and reliable fs
Thats arguable when NT/2K/XP claims that its unformatted
when its still usable in something else like knoppix etc.
> as well as being more fully featured.
Yes, lots more secure and much more flexible with encryption etc.
> Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
> they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
It isnt done at random.
> 50% of the time tis works... and 50% of the time you lose data.
Its much more complicated than that.
> NTFS has 3 copies, so this problem doesnt happen.
Nice theory. Pity about the reality that NT/2K/XP can just decide
that the partition is unformatted when other stuff can read it fine.
> FAT has no password security system, ntfs does,
> so fat is 100% accessible to viri and any user.
> Maybe you dont need the features of ntfs and fat32's limitations arent
> a problem. FAT32 does give more OS options than ntfs, handy if dual
> booting, running dos apps, or swapping discs with winDOS systems.
And much more viable if you want to be able to
write to that partition from both Win and Linux etc.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>They are getting confused by something. It isnt currently clear by what.
If I change the drive letter, it takes effect immediately for one of
the device drivers (the one with the label) but not the other. I have
to reboot to get it to take effect on the other one.
There is something going on with what Windows calls a "generic
device". I see it in the Install/Remove Hardware utility. Sometimes
when I add a partition in Disk Management, it attempts to assign the
next drive letter in the alphabetic sequence, but can't because "that
letter is already in use" or somesuch. But there is no such device to
be found. If I then remove the generic device with the Add/Remove
Hardware, it frees up the hidden letter and I can use it.
Also, in the Registry there is key that shows Mounted Devices. It has
an entry for the hidden drive letter that can't be used. If I clear
out that key, it becomes available.
>Yes, but since you that showed up after the stupid raid
>system was installed, its almost certainly been done by that.
When I built this machine and did an IPU to install Win2K, I ran it
very briefly without that RAID contraption. But I did not use the
defragger so I do not know if there were two device drivers per
partition. I then installed the RAID unit and kept it for about 6
months. The corrupt NTFS partition problem showed up immediately.
I contacted the Product Line Manager in Taiwan and she was eager to
work with me to find the source of the problem. But after a short
period she turned cold - I suspect she discovered that there was
something radically wrong with her product. I contacted my vendor and
he contacted the US importer and they decided that the product was not
functioning properly, so I was given a full cash refund. That's when I
began making clones for backup.
>> He is an independent residential mortgage broker and
>> every time he puts his phone to his ear, he makes money.
>Just get him a cordless phone so he can still do that even when chained to the PC.
He has a cordless phone, and it is constantly in use.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>>> 4GB minus two bytes.
>> Uh oh.
>Uh yes
When I learned this, I immediately converted back to NTFS. It will
take a couple days to see if swapping back and forth has cured the
problem, as Rod suggested it might. I sure as Hell hope so.
--
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge
Citizen Bob
>I'm not suggesting FAT32 is better than NTFS, but
>practically speaking everyone repeats the marketing blurb
>you did, too, without really considering the application,
>whether it'll matter.
The 4GB limitation on file size is a killer for me. I do a lot of
video work and a 4GB file is not unheard of.
Citizen Bob
> All you have to do is make a clean installation,
Easy enough
>export the appropriate registry keys
How do you propose I do that? I have nearly 100 installed apps. Do you
expect me to fish thru the Registry looking for every possible
reference to them, including the classes, etc?
>and copy over the installation folders and shortcuts for the start
>menu.
Easy enough. You also want to copy the profiles.
>Will it work 100% of the time? No, there will be a
>few things that need more attention, but since nobody was
>suggesting you just delete your entire existing
>installation, it's not as though this information is
>suddenly gone and can't be referred to, to get any rogue
>apps working.
I can deal with a small number of apps that don't work. In fact there
were two such apps that did not survive the NTFS -> FAT32 transition
or the FAT32 -> NTFS transition back. I simply uninstalled and
reinstalled.
>Something else you can do is compare the clean
>installation's system and driver files to your old one- the
>apps should not need special drivers in most cases, save for
>a few dealing with specific hardware.
How do you propose I do that?
You make it sound so easy, albeit tedious. But I have serious
reservations about just how easy it is. But I am willing to listen to
any constructive comments. If I can pull off a clean reinstall by
merely doing the things you state above, then let's get started.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Nope, the biggest limitation is actually the 4G file size limit.
That is why I just returned to the NTFS fs. However based on your
comment that the problem might go away if I converted the FAT32 fs I
made the other day to an NTFS fs, I went that route. I should know in
a couple days if the corruption problem has gone away.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> They are getting confused by something. It isnt currently clear by what.
> If I change the drive letter, it takes effect immediately for one
> of the device drivers (the one with the label) but not the other.
THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.
> I have to reboot to get it to take effect on the other one.
> There is something going on with what Windows calls a "generic
> device". I see it in the Install/Remove Hardware utility. Sometimes
> when I add a partition in Disk Management, it attempts to assign the
> next drive letter in the alphabetic sequence, but can't because "that
> letter is already in use" or somesuch.
Thats mangled completely too. It should be able to work out what is free.
> But there is no such device to be found. If I then remove the generic device
> with the Add/Remove Hardware, it frees up the hidden letter and I can use it.
You've stuffed something up, presumably in the process of
using that abortion of a RAID, but it could just as easily have
been you use of whatever it was you used to clone the drive too.
> Also, in the Registry there is key that shows Mounted Devices.
> It has an entry for the hidden drive letter that can't be used.
> If I clear out that key, it becomes available.
Presumably something else keeps putting it back.
>> Yes, but since you that showed up after the stupid raid
>> system was installed, its almost certainly been done by that.
> When I built this machine and did an IPU to install Win2K, I ran it
> very briefly without that RAID contraption. But I did not use the
> defragger so I do not know if there were two device drivers per
> partition. I then installed the RAID unit and kept it for about 6
> months. The corrupt NTFS partition problem showed up immediately.
> I contacted the Product Line Manager in Taiwan and she was
> eager to work with me to find the source of the problem. But
> after a short period she turned cold - I suspect she discovered
> that there was something radically wrong with her product.
Or she decided that you were too bone headed to bother with.
Kony clearly has.
> I contacted my vendor and he contacted the US importer and they
> decided that the product was not functioning properly, so I was given
> a full cash refund. That's when I began making clones for backup.
>>> He is an independent residential mortgage broker and
>>> every time he puts his phone to his ear, he makes money.
>> Just get him a cordless phone so he can
>> still do that even when chained to the PC.
> He has a cordless phone, and it is constantly in use.
A retrospective abortion may well be the only solution.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.
Here's the facts as I see them.
1) If I open a defragger (NT Defrag or Perfect Disk), I see two
entries per partition. Both have a drive letter and one has the volume
label, whereas the other is blank after the drive letter.
2) This does not show up in Disk Management. However there are hidden
devices sometimes because when I format a partition, it won't let me
assign the drive letters for the hidden devices.
3) In DiskPerfect I can expose the GUID for the device drivers, and
they are different for the two entries per partition.
4) Every time I change the disk signature (using Win98SE fdisk /mbr) I
get a message that I have to reboot because Windows has detected a new
device.
>You've stuffed something up, presumably in the process of
>using that abortion of a RAID, but it could just as easily have
>been you use of whatever it was you used to clone the drive too.
The problem was present before I used clones. That problem (corrupt
NTFS partitions) was the reason I got rid of the RAID contraption.
>> Also, in the Registry there is key that shows Mounted Devices.
>> It has an entry for the hidden drive letter that can't be used.
>> If I clear out that key, it becomes available.
>Presumably something else keeps putting it back.
If I could find what it is, I might be able to fix this problem.
One poster suggested that I use RegMon (a Registry monitor that
displays everything that goes on in the Registry) to track down the
problem. The trouble with that is there would be literally thousands
of records to sort thru.
>> I contacted the Product Line Manager in Taiwan and she was
>> eager to work with me to find the source of the problem. But
>> after a short period she turned cold - I suspect she discovered
>> that there was something radically wrong with her product.
>Or she decided that you were too bone headed to bother with.
Why would you say that? If you knew me, you would know I am the
complete opposite. Are you sure you are not projecting.
>Kony clearly has.
Kony doesn't appreciate what I am up against. Anyway, there may be a
misunderstanding about what he means by a "fresh install". I took it
to mean that I have to reinstall all my applications, which is clearly
a nightmare. Now he tells me in his last post that there is a way to
do a fresh install without having to reinstall everything - and it is
not an IPU.
>A retrospective abortion may well be the only solution.
That is not a nice thing to say about my son.
kony
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:45:03 -0400, kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> All you have to do is make a clean installation,
>
>Easy enough
>
>>export the appropriate registry keys
>
>How do you propose I do that? I have nearly 100 installed apps. Do you
>expect me to fish thru the Registry looking for every possible
>reference to them, including the classes, etc?
How much time have you spent so far on this drive
corruption? Hours, maybe longer considering all the time to
restore files and make more frequent backups least lose
data.
Exporting a few registry keys is mere minutes work. So what
if you have to export the classes keys and merge those too?
Remember, you are making a SECOND OS installation, it's not
like you lose anything if you accidentally cause same
problem on the new installation, and if done incrementally
could even help to narrow down what's causing it.
>
>>and copy over the installation folders and shortcuts for the start
>>menu.
>
>Easy enough. You also want to copy the profiles.
Ok, and?
>>Something else you can do is compare the clean
>>installation's system and driver files to your old one- the
>>apps should not need special drivers in most cases, save for
>>a few dealing with specific hardware.
>
>How do you propose I do that?
They're files. You can take two folders and compare what's
inside, particularly in smaller folders like
C:\WINNT\system32\drivers
>
>You make it sound so easy, albeit tedious.
You won't know till you try it, will you?
>But I have serious
>reservations about just how easy it is.
How can you when you only argue against it?
>But I am willing to listen to
>any constructive comments.
>If I can pull off a clean reinstall by
>merely doing the things you state above, then let's get started.
Ok, so have you started? My suggestion is the installation
on another partition or drive, done clean. Get that 100%
working, including drivers, then make a backup of it as you
will do at certain intervals so if something goes awry you
can just revert back without losing the entire installation.
I'm not claiming the whole process will be done in an hour
or two, but considering how long your present installation
has been used, a new one might last you till the end of
time...
Citizen Bob
>Exporting a few registry keys is mere minutes work.
What are those "few registry keys"?
>So what if you have to export the classes keys and merge those too?
Although I have used Regedit, I have no idea how to begin doing what
you are proposing.
>>You make it sound so easy, albeit tedious.
>You won't know till you try it, will you?
If you give me the instructions I am willing to give it a try.
>>But I have serious
>>reservations about just how easy it is.
>
>How can you when you only argue against it?
I told you that I misunderstood what you were proposing all along. I
thought when you used the term "clean install" that I would have to
install all my applications again. That's what I was arguing against.
If you give me the instructions (or point me to a website that has
them) for doing the Registry export, I am willing to have a go at it,
because I won't have to actually reinstall anything.
>>If I can pull off a clean reinstall by
>>merely doing the things you state above, then let's get started.
>Ok, so have you started? My suggestion is the installation
>on another partition or drive, done clean. Get that 100%
>working, including drivers, then make a backup of it as you
>will do at certain intervals so if something goes awry you
>can just revert back without losing the entire installation.
I assume by that you mean create a new active partition of a new
installation of Win2K. That I can do and I can dedicate a complete
disk drive to it. Should I put SP4 on too?
I will do that and report back for the next step. I am trusting you
that the Registry exports will be straightforward, and not require me
to seek out the references to 100 different apps many of which have
different names in the Registry for the same app.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.
> Here's the facts as I see them.
> 1) If I open a defragger (NT Defrag or Perfect Disk), I see two
> entries per partition. Both have a drive letter and one has the
> volume label, whereas the other is blank after the drive letter.
Says nothing useful about whether there are
separate device drivers for those two entrys.
> 2) This does not show up in Disk Management. However there
> are hidden devices sometimes because when I format a partition,
> it won't let me assign the drive letters for the hidden devices.
Says nothing useful about whether there are
separate device drivers for those two entrys.
> 3) In DiskPerfect I can expose the GUID for the device drivers,
Those arent separate device DRIVERS either, they are just separated DEVICES.
> and they are different for the two entries per partition.
Says nothing useful about whether there are
separate device drivers for those two entrys.
> 4) Every time I change the disk signature (using Win98SE fdisk /mbr) I get
> a message that I have to reboot because Windows has detected a new device.
Says nothing useful about whether there are
separate device drivers for those two entrys.
>> You've stuffed something up, presumably in the process of
>> using that abortion of a RAID, but it could just as easily have
>> been you use of whatever it was you used to clone the drive too.
> The problem was present before I used clones.
I didnt meant the clones for backup, I meant the cloning you did in
the process of setting that system up with that abortion of a RAID.
Using the hard drive manufacturer's ute from memory.
> That problem (corrupt NTFS partitions) was
> the reason I got rid of the RAID contraption.
The corruption may well be an entirely separate issue to the
extra entry for each partition since changing to FAT32 fixed
the corruption but not the extra entry for each partition.
>>> Also, in the Registry there is key that shows Mounted Devices.
>>> It has an entry for the hidden drive letter that can't be used.
>>> If I clear out that key, it becomes available.
>> Presumably something else keeps putting it back.
> If I could find what it is, I might be able to fix this problem.
> One poster suggested that I use RegMon (a Registry monitor that
> displays everything that goes on in the Registry) to track down the
> problem. The trouble with that is there would be literally thousands
> of records to sort thru.
Thats what the search function is for.
>>> I contacted the Product Line Manager in Taiwan and she was
>>> eager to work with me to find the source of the problem. But
>>> after a short period she turned cold - I suspect she discovered
>>> that there was something radically wrong with her product.
>> Or she decided that you were too bone headed to bother with.
> Why would you say that?
Because of the evidence I have seen of your bone headedness.
> If you knew me, you would know I am the complete opposite.
Pity about the evidence of your boneheadedness in your posts.
An absolutely classic example of that is that obsessive claim
that you have separate device drivers for those extra entrys
for each partition when there are no such separate device drivers.
> Are you sure you are not projecting.
Completely sure.
>> Kony clearly has.
> Kony doesn't appreciate what I am up against.
Yes he does.
> Anyway, there may be a misunderstanding about what he
> means by a "fresh install". I took it to mean that I have to
> reinstall all my applications, which is clearly a nightmare.
And we both kept rubbing your nose in the fact that that isnt necessary.
> Now he tells me in his last post that there is a way to do a fresh
> install without having to reinstall everything - and it is not an IPU.
And I told you that well before that, using the files and settings transfer wizard.
>> A retrospective abortion may well be the only solution.
> That is not a nice thing to say about my son.
That was a joke, Joyce.
Rod Speed
Install that on one of your spare drives, apply SP2 and the online updates.
Install all those apps, dont worry about the settings/config stuff for those.
Use the files and settings transfer wizard in XP to get the settings
and config stuff and files from the 2K install you are currently using.
See how you like that XP install, particularly that the wizard has got
all the settings etc across fine. If they are mostly fine and it just hasnt
got the settings for a few apps across, do those manually, if necessary
repeatedly rebooting between 2K and XP to check the original settings etc.
Once its working fine, break out the champagne and get on with your 'life'
kony
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:25:23 -0400, kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Exporting a few registry keys is mere minutes work.
>
>What are those "few registry keys"?
I can't answer that, because I don't have your system nor
know all the apps. A few of them would tend to be
HKLM-Software, HKCU-Software, and you mentioned classes so
HKCR.
You might take it the other way 'round though, get the clean
Win2k SP4 installation working and before trying to change
it, first compare it... for example, what's sitting in your
system32/drivers folder, if all the hardware works on the
new installation, take a hard look at what's *extra* on your
old installation.
>
>>So what if you have to export the classes keys and merge those too?
>
>Although I have used Regedit, I have no idea how to begin doing what
>you are proposing.
Export is a menu item, so for example with the
HKLM-Software, you'd highlight that key, export it, and then
merge it on the fresh installation. Again I would wait on
that, first verifying that the new installation works as it
should, and comparing it.
>
>>>You make it sound so easy, albeit tedious.
>
>>You won't know till you try it, will you?
>
>If you give me the instructions I am willing to give it a try.
The key to the process is keeping your existing installation
intact. That allows copying over the installation folder,
and shortcuts, and the "Application Data" folders for each
user and for the "All users" categories (in the \Documents
and Settings\ folder)
This is essentially a volume attack at copying over the
majority of the applicable files and settings. Some apps
may put something in the system folder or elsewhere,
perhaps a license validation key or whatever, so if/when an
app won't work you'd have to either hunt down the file or
registry entry, or enter it the traditional way if it
prompts for that.
I'm not claiming you'll magically have everything working
without a bit of hunting around, but rather a lot of stuff
will work and you can then spend less time on fewer things
you either hunt down, or if you can't, then install again.
>I told you that I misunderstood what you were proposing all along. I
>thought when you used the term "clean install" that I would have to
>install all my applications again. That's what I was arguing against.
Actually by clean install I meant not installing apps at
all, I meant not trying to use this as your replacement
everyday OS installation, yet, rather to verify the hardware
is otherwise working properly with a clean Win2kSP4 install-
because if it can't do that, there's no point in wondering
if what you have can be fixed. Further having the clean
install, it can be compared to what you have, while it might
be harder to move everything, you may install see things
that stand out, which aren't related to the apps you need
but are just clutter left over from years of use. I can't
really imagine what the system folders must look like after
so much time, upgrading, and so many apps, but there's bound
to be tons of stuff that needs cleared out and if nothing
else you could make some temporary folders and just move the
stuff, they try to run the system and see if anything
chokes.
>
>If you give me the instructions (or point me to a website that has
>them) for doing the Registry export, I am willing to have a go at it,
>because I won't have to actually reinstall anything.
>
I never claimed you wont have to reinstall "anything", if
you have 100 apps the odds are fair you would have
something or other that needs more than just what I'd
mentioned, but it's possible you wouldn't.
The main thing is, you start doing it and see what's left,
what won't run. There are also tools that can help you see
when an app is looking for a file or a registry entry it
can't find, and then failing to run. Sysinternals.com has a
few, the Filemon and Regmon for example are both freeware.
>>>If I can pull off a clean reinstall by
>>>merely doing the things you state above, then let's get started.
>
>>Ok, so have you started? My suggestion is the installation
>>on another partition or drive, done clean. Get that 100%
>>working, including drivers, then make a backup of it as you
>>will do at certain intervals so if something goes awry you
>>can just revert back without losing the entire installation.
>
>I assume by that you mean create a new active partition of a new
>installation of Win2K. That I can do and I can dedicate a complete
>disk drive to it. Should I put SP4 on too?
Yes, the operating system should be 100% done, including
SP4, all modern patches, before even thinking about adding
any apps or registry entries or anything else, then back it
up first, then compare to your present installation.
This is a long roundabout way of doing it though, I'd be
looking at system32/drivers/ files and odd out-of-place
services first, and the items you can UNhide in Device
Manager. That might be useful, comparing the entire
unhidden list in Device Manager between your old
installation and the new one. This too I'd do before trying
to move any applications or registry entries.
>
>I will do that and report back for the next step. I am trusting you
>that the Registry exports will be straightforward, and not require me
>to seek out the references to 100 different apps many of which have
>different names in the Registry for the same app.
I gave examples above of copying the entire subkey. That
will be a little extra clutter in your registry, but if you
wanted to you could always expand these subkeys and manually
delete any of the next level that you recognize as being no
longer on the system. Likewise with the apps, you'll have
to copy them all over and while it would be easy to just say
"they're all in your program files folder", they might not
be, you'd be getting the bulk of them in one shot then
dealing with the few odd things remaining.
The main thing to remember is you're not changing your
existing installation, and by making incremental backups of
the new installation at worst what you'll have is a ready to
use OS installation when you decide to retire that system to
a secondary use (or sell it) and move all your stuff to a
new computer. So unless you plan on throwing it away this
new OS installation is something that had to be done anyway.
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> I gave examples above of copying the entire subkey. That
> will be a little extra clutter in your registry, but if you
> wanted to you could always expand these subkeys and manually
> delete any of the next level that you recognize as being no
> longer on the system. Likewise with the apps, you'll have
> to copy them all over and while it would be easy to just say
> "they're all in your program files folder", they might not
> be, you'd be getting the bulk of them in one shot then
> dealing with the few odd things remaining.
>
> The main thing to remember is you're not changing your
> existing installation, and by making incremental backups of
> the new installation at worst what you'll have is a ready to
> use OS installation when you decide to retire that system to
> a secondary use (or sell it) and move all your stuff to a
> new computer. So unless you plan on throwing it away this
> new OS installation is something that had to be done anyway.
When he gets his pristine system up, the first thing he should
install is INCTRL5 from pcmag.com. This used to be free, but I
believe the rats (bean counters) got at that. At any rate that can
supervise any new installations and record the precise files
installed, erased, register entries made or altered, etc. This
will allow total extermination of a bad utility, leaving no tracks.
At the same time it is worth while making periodic backups of the
entire registry. You can then bodily return to any previous
state. If the backups are made by exporting, the resultant files
are text, and can be quickly searched in an editor. Searching in
regedit is abysmally slow. Then the pristine system backup can be
instantaneously updated to any of the backedup records by importing
that backup.
My experience is with W98, since I will not allow any of the later
versions on my systems, due primarily to that execresence of a
EULA.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
meow...@care2.com
> On 24 Oct 2006 12:07:53 -0700, meow...@care2.com wrote:
> >VWWall wrote:
> >> Citizen Bob wrote:
> >> > On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow...@care2.com wrote:
> >FAT32 max partition size is 30G, which is its biggest limitation. NTFS
> >is a much more secure and reliable fs as well as being more fully
> >featured.
> This is generally untrue.
>
> UNLESS you set encryption or permissions, NTFS gains nothing
> security wise. Maybe he would, but the security is not
> better just because of NTFS.
>
> As for reliability, not really. The vast majority of
> problems with FAT32, would effect NTFS as well.
> >Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
> >they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
> If you have errors, fix the problem.
nice idea, but optimistic
> >50% of the time tis works... and 50% of the time you lose data. NTFS
> >has 3 copies, so this problem doesnt happen. FAT has no password
> >security system, ntfs does, so fat is 100% accessible to viri and any
> >user.
> Where does a virus tend to put itself? OS partition. Are
> you seriously claiming everyone with NTFS on Winxp, has
> never had a virus on their OS partition?
Never claimed any such thing.
> >Maybe you dont need the features of ntfs and fat32's limitations arent
> >a problem. FAT32 does give more OS options than ntfs, handy if dual
> >booting, running dos apps, or swapping discs with winDOS systems.
> I'm not suggesting FAT32 is better than NTFS, but
> practically speaking everyone repeats the marketing blurb
> you did, too, without really considering the application,
> whether it'll matter.
OK :) I'll accept most of what you say. I've mostly stayed with fat for
compatibility reasons. I guess the experienced difference is down to os
more than fs, fat has not proved robust.
NT
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'd cut to the chase and move to XP.
>Install that on one of your spare drives, apply SP2 and the online updates.
I will consider it.
>Install all those apps, dont worry about the settings/config stuff for those.
What apps are you talking about? What exactly do you mean by
"install"?
>Use the files and settings transfer wizard in XP to get the settings
>and config stuff and files from the 2K install you are currently using.
I presume this is a new version of the IPU.
>See how you like that XP install, particularly that the wizard has got
>all the settings etc across fine.
Is there an easy way to do that or do I have to test each app one at a
time?
>If they are mostly fine and it just hasnt
>got the settings for a few apps across, do those manually, if necessary
>repeatedly rebooting between 2K and XP to check the original settings etc.
I can handle manually installing a few apps.
>Once its working fine, break out the champagne and get on with your 'life'
My life is already as "gotten on with" as it can get.
Citizen Bob
>You might take it the other way 'round though, get the clean
>Win2k SP4 installation working and before trying to change
>it, first compare it... for example, what's sitting in your
>system32/drivers folder, if all the hardware works on the
>new installation, take a hard look at what's *extra* on your
>old installation.
That's as much work, if not more, than just reinstalling everything.
If I screw up even one Registry Key, it could impact the behavior of
the new system and I'd be back where I started.
I am still testing this new NTFS filesystem, the one I copied
everything in from the FAT32 partition. Thus far it has not gotten
corrupted. Maybe there was some kind of screwball entity in the
pagefile or MFT and by creating a new NTFS partition I got rid of it.
One thing I do notice is that Windows loads faster now. But it still
creates two devices for each partition which show up in defraggers but
not Disk Management.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>since changing to FAT32 fixed
>the corruption but not the extra entry for each partition.
I di dnot test the FAT32 filesystem long enough to be certain that it
fixed the corruption problem. Of course, there can be no "NTFS
corruption" with a FAT32 partition.
Now that I am using a new NTFS partition, we will see if it gets
corrupted. It takes a week or two to make sure.
>>> A retrospective abortion may well be the only solution.
>> That is not a nice thing to say about my son.
>That was a joke, Joyce.
It's not funny. It's sick.
Obviously you do not have a son you can be proud of. Pity you.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> since changing to FAT32 fixed the corruption
>> but not the extra entry for each partition.
> I did not test the FAT32 filesystem long enough
> to be certain that it fixed the corruption problem.
Why not when that involves running chkdsk ?
> Of course, there can be no "NTFS corruption" with a FAT32 partition.
Sure.
> Now that I am using a new NTFS partition, we will see if
> it gets corrupted. It takes a week or two to make sure.
No it doesnt if you run chkdsk.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> I'd cut to the chase and move to XP.
>> Install that on one of your spare drives,
>> apply SP2 and the online updates.
> I will consider it.
>> Install all those apps, dont worry about the settings/config stuff for those.
> What apps are you talking about?
All those you have got installed.
> What exactly do you mean by "install"?
You must know what installing apps is about.
>> Use the files and settings transfer wizard in XP to get the settings
>> and config stuff and files from the 2K install you are currently using.
> I presume this is a new version of the IPU.
Nope.
>> See how you like that XP install, particularly that
>> the wizard has got all the settings etc across fine.
> Is there an easy way to do that
Nope.
> or do I have to test each app one at a time?
Yep.
>> If they are mostly fine and it just hasnt got the settings for
>> a few apps across, do those manually, if necessary repeatedly
>> rebooting between 2K and XP to check the original settings etc.
> I can handle manually installing a few apps.
You should be able to handle manually installing all those apps.
Not a shred of rocket science required at all.
>> Once its working fine, break out the champagne and get on with your 'life'
> My life is already as "gotten on with" as it can get.
Easy to claim when you are crippling along using a
fucked install of 2K when the world has moved on.
kony
>kony wrote:
>> On 24 Oct 2006 12:07:53 -0700, meow...@care2.com wrote:
>> >VWWall wrote:
>> >> Citizen Bob wrote:
>> >> > On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow...@care2.com wrote:
>
>> >FAT32 max partition size is 30G, which is its biggest limitation. NTFS
>> >is a much more secure and reliable fs as well as being more fully
>> >featured.
>
>> This is generally untrue.
>>
>> UNLESS you set encryption or permissions, NTFS gains nothing
>> security wise. Maybe he would, but the security is not
>> better just because of NTFS.
>>
>> As for reliability, not really. The vast majority of
>> problems with FAT32, would effect NTFS as well.
>
>
>> >Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
>> >they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
>
>> If you have errors, fix the problem.
>
>nice idea, but optimistic
Not at all, NTFS is not a solution to a serious problem like
continual corruption of your filesystem. Optimistic would
be hoping that if you run NTFS, somehow the machine will
decide to only corrupt tables and nothing more.
kony
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:57:01 -0400, kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>You might take it the other way 'round though, get the clean
>>Win2k SP4 installation working and before trying to change
>>it, first compare it... for example, what's sitting in your
>>system32/drivers folder, if all the hardware works on the
>>new installation, take a hard look at what's *extra* on your
>>old installation.
>
>That's as much work, if not more, than just reinstalling everything.
>
Define work? Time or what?
It's the computer doing it, automated, right now I could
export the 3 keys, copy the program files folders, and
compare files and Device Manager entries in under 10
minutes, maybe more than 10 minutes to copy 100's of apps if
it was being done over a slow LAN instead of drive to drive.
You do understand that to export registry entries, you dont'
select each individual one, you highlight the subkey and all
children under that subkey are exported with one go.
Exporting the keys I'd mentioned and merging them takes
under 1 minute and maybe 20 mouse clicks (grand total for
mundane things like choosing where to save the files, etc).
>If I screw up even one Registry Key, it could impact the behavior of
>the new system and I'd be back where I started.
Regedit has this feature, for this purpose, so what can I
say? It's like telling you to print something and you
write "what if I screw up the printing".
Citizen Bob
>It's the computer doing it, automated, right now I could
>export the 3 keys,
Which 3 keys - my Registry has 5 hive keys.
I must have missed something along the way, because I do not see how
exporting hive keys is going to do any good. If the Registry is
screwed up, then exporting hive keys is going to carry the screwed up
parts along.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I did not test the FAT32 filesystem long enough
>> to be certain that it fixed the corruption problem.
>Why not when that involves running chkdsk ?
I ran chkdsk. The corruption problem occurs seemingly at random. The
longer I go between reboots, the more likely corruption is. I have
gone as long as a week with no problems only to have it back again on
the next day.
>> Now that I am using a new NTFS partition, we will see if
>> it gets corrupted. It takes a week or two to make sure.
>No it doesnt if you run chkdsk.
You don't seem to understand the exact nature of this problem. I have
to reboot to run chkdsk, and that is when the corruption shows up. It
does not show up unless I reboot.
Ironically, if the corruption occurs, Win2K runs chkdsk for me at boot
time. Sometimes the corruption is so extensive that I get a BSOD.
That's when I have to mount the disk as D: and run chkdsk from another
boot disk. When that happens chkdsk spews forth page after page of
security descripters for kazillions of files that are presumably
corrupted too.
I have always been able to recover with one exception involving a
BSOD. That one was so bad the disk would not mount in Win2K, so
obviously I could not run chkdsk.
meow...@care2.com
> >nice idea, but optimistic
You said fix the problem. If you know how to make 98 manage memory
properly and not crash regularly, occasionally leaving FAT problems
behind, I'm all ears!
NT
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> I did not test the FAT32 filesystem long enough
>>> to be certain that it fixed the corruption problem.
>> Why not when that involves running chkdsk ?
> I ran chkdsk. The corruption problem occurs seemingly at
> random. The longer I go between reboots, the more likely
> corruption is. I have gone as long as a week with no
> problems only to have it back again on the next day.
That sounds like some fundamental hardware problem
like the motherboard doesnt like the ram much.
I'd run memtest86 overnight every night because it
looks rather like the problem is rather intermittent.
>>> Now that I am using a new NTFS partition, we will see if
>>> it gets corrupted. It takes a week or two to make sure.
>> No it doesnt if you run chkdsk.
> You don't seem to understand the exact nature of this problem.
You never did say it very clearly.
> I have to reboot to run chkdsk, and that is when the
> corruption shows up. It does not show up unless I reboot.
Likely that is just because it isnt corrupted enough to affect normal ops.
> Ironically, if the corruption occurs, Win2K runs chkdsk for me at boot time.
Thats rather odd. That may be a coincidence tho, just that you are
only aware of the corruption when chkdsk is run and when 2K chooses
to run it, presumably because it decides that it wasnt shut down
properly, you see the corruption just because chkdsk has been run.
> Sometimes the corruption is so extensive that I get a BSOD. That's when
> I have to mount the disk as D: and run chkdsk from another boot disk.
Thats even odder.
kony
Non-applicable, '98 doesn't allow the choice of NTFS.
I do have systems that run FAT32 on '98 though, and can't
recall the last time any files were lost.
kony
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:56:09 -0400, kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>It's the computer doing it, automated, right now I could
>>export the 3 keys,
>
>Which 3 keys - my Registry has 5 hive keys.
>
>I must have missed something along the way, because I do not see how
>exporting hive keys is going to do any good. If the Registry is
>screwed up, then exporting hive keys is going to carry the screwed up
>parts along.
I mentioned specific keys.
"IF" the registry is screwed up and that's the problem, then
reproducing that problem by only copying some reg keys will
at least help to isolate it.
I can see you are still not understanding the situation- the
only thing keeping you from having a properly working
system is _you_. You are trying to think, or argue, instead
of _doing_. Taking the approach you have, no problems
anyone has would be solved, but clearly problems do get
solved.
meow...@care2.com
> On 26 Oct 2006 11:43:06 -0700, meow...@care2.com wrote:
> >kony wrote:
> >> On 26 Oct 2006 00:17:27 -0700, meow...@care2.com wrote:
> >> >> >Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
> >> >> >they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
> >> >> If you have errors, fix the problem.
> >> >nice idea, but optimistic
> >> Not at all, NTFS is not a solution to a serious problem like
> >> continual corruption of your filesystem. Optimistic would
> >> be hoping that if you run NTFS, somehow the machine will
> >> decide to only corrupt tables and nothing more.
> >You said fix the problem. If you know how to make 98 manage memory
> >properly and not crash regularly, occasionally leaving FAT problems
> >behind, I'm all ears!
> Non-applicable, '98 doesn't allow the choice of NTFS.
I've put ntfs on 98, courtesy of Mr Russinovich. Read only
unfortunately.
> I do have systems that run FAT32 on '98 though, and can't
> recall the last time any files were lost.
Lucky you. Maybe mostly running older drives comes into it too, but
I've seen 98 mangle a FAT on several occasion.
NT
Citizen Bob
>I can see you are still not understanding the situation- the
>only thing keeping you from having a properly working
>system is _you_. You are trying to think, or argue, instead
>of _doing_. Taking the approach you have, no problems
>anyone has would be solved, but clearly problems do get
>solved.
Thanks for the lecture.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That sounds like some fundamental hardware problem
>like the motherboard doesnt like the ram much.
>I'd run memtest86 overnight every night because it
>looks rather like the problem is rather intermittent.
I have run it but not every night.
>You never did say it very clearly.
I did many times earlier. This thread has been recurring for several
months now. Apparently you were not participating on this particular
forum back then.
>> I have to reboot to run chkdsk, and that is when the
>> corruption shows up. It does not show up unless I reboot.
>Likely that is just because it isnt corrupted enough to affect normal ops.
It is pretty corrupted when it BSODs. CHKDSK fusses about all sorts of
things. I posted a file containing all the crap CHKDSK fixed and it is
several pages long. Next time I get a BSOD, I will post it again.
>> Ironically, if the corruption occurs, Win2K runs chkdsk for me at boot time.
>
>Thats rather odd. That may be a coincidence tho, just that you are
>only aware of the corruption when chkdsk is run and when 2K chooses
>to run it, presumably because it decides that it wasnt shut down
>properly, you see the corruption just because chkdsk has been run.
There are entries in the Event Viewer - "corrupt ntfs volume, run
chkdsk". Not very helpful. Nothing else seems to be wrong in EV.
After a few days of running the "new" NTFS partition, the one made
from the earlier FAT32, I finally got a corrupt disk. When it was
booting it ran CHKDSK on its own. The only apparent problem was "blank
space in the MFT".
Citizen Bob
>All you have to do is make a clean
>installation, export the appropriate registry keys and copy
>over the installation folders and shortcuts for the start
>menu.
I still do not know what Registry keys you are referring to.
It is very likely that the corrupt ntfs filesystem is coming from a
Registry key. So how do I prevent it from contaminating the new
install?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> That sounds like some fundamental hardware problem
>> like the motherboard doesnt like the ram much.
>> I'd run memtest86 overnight every night because it
>> looks rather like the problem is rather intermittent.
> I have run it but not every night.
I'd run it every night for a few weeks, because it
looks like it might well be an intermittent problem.
>> You never did say it very clearly.
> I did many times earlier.
Nope, you never spelt it out that clearly before.
It wasnt initially clear that reformat to FAT32 had fixed just
SOME of the problems and not the duplicate entrys either.
> This thread has been recurring for several months now.
> Apparently you were not participating on this particular
> forum back then.
Its silly to rely memory of stuff that far back even if I was.
There's been a few more than just you with problems over that time.
>>> I have to reboot to run chkdsk, and that is when the
>>> corruption shows up. It does not show up unless I reboot.
>> Likely that is just because it isnt corrupted enough to affect normal ops.
> It is pretty corrupted when it BSODs.
Sure, I meant when it doesnt, just runs chkdsk itself at boot time.
> CHKDSK fusses about all sorts of things. I posted a file
> containing all the crap CHKDSK fixed and it is several
> pages long. Next time I get a BSOD, I will post it again.
Dont bother, I can find it using groups.google
and the detail really doesnt matter much.
>>> Ironically, if the corruption occurs, Win2K runs chkdsk for me at boot time.
>> Thats rather odd. That may be a coincidence tho, just that you are
>> only aware of the corruption when chkdsk is run and when 2K chooses
>> to run it, presumably because it decides that it wasnt shut down
>> properly, you see the corruption just because chkdsk has been run.
> There are entries in the Event Viewer - "corrupt ntfs volume, run chkdsk".
And that is something you should have said earlier too.
> Not very helpful.
Dunno, how soon those show up might well be useful info
about how soon you start seeing corruption after a cleanup.
> Nothing else seems to be wrong in EV.
> After a few days of running the "new" NTFS partition, the
> one made from the earlier FAT32, I finally got a corrupt
> disk. When it was booting it ran CHKDSK on its own.
When did the first EV entry show up in that sequence ?
> The only apparent problem was "blank space in the MFT".
Clearly something is screwing with the directory structures.
I'd personally do a clean install of 2K on a spare hard drive
and run that for days to see if that gets corrupted too. Basically
to see if the problem is with the hardware or a fucked 2K install.
It'd be hilarious if it turns out to be those removable drive bays that are doing it.
kony
>> I do have systems that run FAT32 on '98 though, and can't
>> recall the last time any files were lost.
>
>Lucky you. Maybe mostly running older drives comes into it too, but
>I've seen 98 mangle a FAT on several occasion.
Nope not old drives, and not luck. Though win98 had several
issues people were frequently glad to be rid of moving to NT
based OS, losing files because of FAT32 just wasn't one of
them.
kony
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:30:49 -0400, kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>I can see you are still not understanding the situation- the
>>only thing keeping you from having a properly working
>>system is _you_. You are trying to think, or argue, instead
>>of _doing_. Taking the approach you have, no problems
>>anyone has would be solved, but clearly problems do get
>>solved.
>
>Thanks for the lecture.
Is it not true?
If it were more useful to continue down the path you're
taking, I would've- but how many times and posts have
transpired already? I'm posting what I consider the best
course to rectify the problem, that course being to do...
already plenty of though on it but that didn't help so it's
time to shift gears.
kony
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:45:03 -0400, kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>All you have to do is make a clean
>>installation, export the appropriate registry keys and copy
>>over the installation folders and shortcuts for the start
>>menu.
>
>I still do not know what Registry keys you are referring to.
>
I posted them. HKCU-software, HKLM- software,
HK-Classes-Root. The abbreviations are obvious enough when
looking at regedit.
You have not yet done the clean install though? Trying to
look at the whole process in one lump is always more
difficult than taking things one step at a time and it's not
time to merge the registry if you dont' have a known good
clean 2KSP4/patched installation up yet.
>It is very likely that the corrupt ntfs filesystem is coming from a
>Registry key. So how do I prevent it from contaminating the new
>install?
You dont' need to. You get system working before reg keys
are added, make a backup. Make sure it works right, no
phantom double drive volume entries or anything like that
and if adding the registry entries causes the problem you
have then isolated it to a registry setting which is a GOOD
thing, more than you have to go on so far.
It shouldn't be though, you're only merging the software
keys, not the entire registry, and ideally weeding out
software you dont' even have installed anymore before
exporting it, but if you want to save time and not weed that
stuff out, that's ok too- it'll just be a little clutter
opposed to a lot of it and the problem.
The main thing to remember is you are not trying to do all
of this (registry AND files) at once. Do one, and verify
the system works properly. Same goes for comparing the
driver folders- comparison should be done before adding
anything from the old installation.
There's no point in typing anything more if you're not going
to get the system into a state where it could be applied.
CBFalconer
>>
>> Lucky you. Maybe mostly running older drives comes into it too,
>> but I've seen 98 mangle a FAT on several occasion.
>
> Nope not old drives, and not luck. Though win98 had several
> issues people were frequently glad to be rid of moving to NT
> based OS, losing files because of FAT32 just wasn't one of
> them.
I guess you haven't got him plonked for obscenity.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> CHKDSK fusses about all sorts of things. I posted a file
>> containing all the crap CHKDSK fixed and it is several
>> pages long. Next time I get a BSOD, I will post it again.
>Dont bother, I can find it using groups.google
>and the detail really doesnt matter much.
I finally got a BSOD this morning, but I forgot to redirect the
output. It was the same sort of thing as it always is with a BSOD. And
this was only 24 hours after yesterday's boottime automatic chkdsk.
IOW it appears that the corruption is beginning to occur more often.
I do not have enough data to state this with certaintym but I have
noticed that if I defrag with PerfectDisk, both online and offline,
that I can go a lot longer before corruptions. After a defrag I can
get as much as a week before corruption. Then they come more often
until I defrag again.
One hypothesis is that those dual devices are confusing the MFT and it
gets worse with time until it finally crashed the system upon boot.
Eventually it gets so bad it BSODs on boot.
>When did the first EV entry show up in that sequence ?
Here is the usual sequence. I look in EV and see nothing wrong. I
clean it out so there are no entries. I shut down and reboot. Most of
the time when something goes wrong I get an automatic chkdsk, and
about 10% of those times I get a BSOD instead. After fixing the disk I
look in EV and that's when I see the Corrupt NTFS Volume message. It
always appears twice in succession at the time of the reboot.
>> The only apparent problem was "blank space in the MFT".
>Clearly something is screwing with the directory structures.
>I'd personally do a clean install of 2K on a spare hard drive
>and run that for days to see if that gets corrupted too. Basically
>to see if the problem is with the hardware or a fucked 2K install.
You still do not appreciate the situation I am in. I cannot run an
empty Win2K. I have to have applications and that's what I do not want
to do - reinstall applications on a new Win2K.
If I had another machine I could do it although I would not be
exercising the applications since there would not be any.
There is always the possibility that a rogue application I am running
is causing the problem. If I could get a stable baseline for the
system, then I could keep track of what I run each day.
>It'd be hilarious if it turns out to be those removable drive bays that are doing it.
I have no evidence to support that. If the removable bays were causing
the trouble then I would see the corruption happening at times other
than reboot. Also, I would see it happening to the backup disk in D:
Citizen Bob
>>I still do not know what Registry keys you are referring to.
>I posted them. HKCU-software, HKLM- software,
>HK-Classes-Root.
I never saw that post. You did not post any Registry keys like the
ones above on this forum that I can find.
I ran a Google Groups Advanced search on this forum with "HKCU" as the
keyword. I found only this exact post - the one I am replying to right
here - and one other that had nothing to do with this discussion.
Either your computer is broken or you are posting to another group or
you are hallucinating. But don't take my word for it - check it out
yourself on Google. If you find it, then I am hallucinating.
>It shouldn't be though, you're only merging the software
>keys, not the entire registry, and ideally weeding out
>software you dont' even have installed anymore before
>exporting it, but if you want to save time and not weed that
>stuff out, that's ok too- it'll just be a little clutter
>opposed to a lot of it and the problem.
If those are the only keys I have to deal with, then I can weed them
out in a text editor or a Registry editor.
>There's no point in typing anything more if you're not going
>to get the system into a state where it could be applied.
Now that I know what keys to export, I can guage the size of the
project. It looks doable now, so I will put it on my calendar. I am
currently involved in reprogramming my remote control using JP1 hacks
for new DVDs I bought but there are no codes available.
It seems all I am doing nowadays is fixing things.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> CHKDSK fusses about all sorts of things. I posted a file
>>> containing all the crap CHKDSK fixed and it is several
>>> pages long. Next time I get a BSOD, I will post it again.
>> Dont bother, I can find it using groups.google
>> and the detail really doesnt matter much.
> I finally got a BSOD this morning, but I forgot to redirect the
> output. It was the same sort of thing as it always is with a BSOD. And
> this was only 24 hours after yesterday's boottime automatic chkdsk.
> IOW it appears that the corruption is beginning to occur more often.
> I do not have enough data to state this with certaintym
> but I have noticed that if I defrag with PerfectDisk, both
> online and offline, that I can go a lot longer before
> corruptions. After a defrag I can get as much as a week before
> corruption. Then they come more often until I defrag again.
I bet that is an illusion, and if it isnt, likely its just because a defrag
minimises the changes that are needed to the MFT due to normal
file activity, and so it gets corrupted slower just due to that.
> One hypothesis is that those dual devices are confusing the MFT
Cant be that because access will always
be via one of the devices with normal ops.
> and it gets worse with time until it finally crashed the system
> upon boot. Eventually it gets so bad it BSODs on boot.
>> When did the first EV entry show up in that sequence ?
> Here is the usual sequence. I look in EV and see nothing wrong. I
> clean it out so there are no entries. I shut down and reboot. Most of
> the time when something goes wrong I get an automatic chkdsk, and
> about 10% of those times I get a BSOD instead. After fixing the disk I
> look in EV and that's when I see the Corrupt NTFS Volume message.
> It always appears twice in succession at the time of the reboot.
>>> The only apparent problem was "blank space in the MFT".
>> Clearly something is screwing with the directory structures.
>> I'd personally do a clean install of 2K on a spare hard drive
>> and run that for days to see if that gets corrupted too. Basically
>> to see if the problem is with the hardware or a fucked 2K install.
> You still do not appreciate the situation I am in.
Wrong.
> I cannot run an empty Win2K.
Corse you can for a TEST.
> I have to have applications and that's what I do not
> want to do - reinstall applications on a new Win2K.
I'm talking about a TEST, not a new config.
> If I had another machine I could do it
You dont need another machine, just another hard drive for the test.
> although I would not be exercising the
> applications since there would not be any.
Even you should be able to install just a couple of apps for the TEST.
> There is always the possibility that a rogue
> application I am running is causing the problem.
Unlikely since few apps directly manipulate the MFT, they leave that to the OS.
That is however why I suggested not using Perfect Disk
for a while, in case it that thats corrupting the MFT.
> If I could get a stable baseline for the system,
> then I could keep track of what I run each day.
You dont need to have a stable baseline to do that.
>> It'd be hilarious if it turns out to be those
>> removable drive bays that are doing it.
> I have no evidence to support that.
Yes, but it would be worth trying the boot drive directly connected
instead of in the removable drive bay to eliminate that possibility since
we do know that you can get that result with removable drive bays.
> If the removable bays were causing the trouble then I would
> see the corruption happening at times other than reboot.
You dont know that you dont get it at times other than a reboot.
And even if it does only happen on a reboot, that proves nothing
about what is doing that. If it only happens on a reboot, it cant be
an app doing it, it has to be the OS or the hardware.
> Also, I would see it happening to the backup disk in D:
Not necessarily.
Anyone with a clue would try the boot drive directly connected and see if
the corruption still occurs. Bet you'll find a reason not to do that obvious test.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You still do not appreciate the situation I am in.
>Wrong.
Do you depend on your computer every day to make money? Or do you just
use it for recreation?
>> I cannot run an empty Win2K.
>Corse you can for a TEST.
In order to test the new install, I would have to run it full time for
several days. What am I supposed to do about all the apps I normally
run in the course of a day? I can't just abandon my routine for a test
- I need to run the apps every weekday.
>> I have to have applications and that's what I do not
>> want to do - reinstall applications on a new Win2K.
>I'm talking about a TEST, not a new config.
If I do not install enough apps then I can't run the things I need to
run.
>> If I had another machine I could do it
>You dont need another machine, just another hard drive for the test.
How am I going to run two versions of Win2K on two separate partitions
at the same time?
>> although I would not be exercising the
>> applications since there would not be any.
>Even you should be able to install just a couple of apps for the TEST.
You don't realize that I would have to install more than just a couple
apps.
>> There is always the possibility that a rogue
>> application I am running is causing the problem.
>Unlikely since few apps directly manipulate the MFT, they leave that to the OS.
What about those that don't? I did say "rogue applocation".
I am just guessing so let's assume you are right and that is not the
problem.
>That is however why I suggested not using Perfect Disk
>for a while, in case it that thats corrupting the MFT.
PerfectDisk is very new - only a month or two old. This problem has
been going on for a year.
>> If I could get a stable baseline for the system,
>> then I could keep track of what I run each day.
>You dont need to have a stable baseline to do that.
Without a stable baseline, I can't be sure that any one variable is
contibuting.
>>> It'd be hilarious if it turns out to be those
>>> removable drive bays that are doing it.
>> I have no evidence to support that.
>Yes, but it would be worth trying the boot drive directly connected
>instead of in the removable drive bay to eliminate that possibility since
>we do know that you can get that result with removable drive bays.
If I connect it directly, then I have to mount it inside the machine.
Then when it gets corrupt I can't make it the D: drive without taking
it out.
Actually that is not quite true. My BIOS allows me to choose which
disk is the boot disk, so if I wanted the hard mount to be D:, I make
the disk in the tray the C:.
I may do just what you suggest - make one of the disks a hard mount
bypassing the tray. I may have a cabling problem because of the
location of the internal vs removable bay. However I have some
brackets to turn a 5 1/4: iinto a 3 1/2" so I could keep the disk in
the same position in the case.
>> If the removable bays were causing the trouble then I would
>> see the corruption happening at times other than reboot.
>You dont know that you dont get it at times other than a reboot.
U check EV all the time and have never seen it. However it may be that
it is not being detected except at boot. I can't run chkdsk whenever I
want - it must be run at boot. Is there some other diagnostic that can
detect a corrupt NTFS volume that I could schedule to run periodically
while Win2K is running?
>And even if it does only happen on a reboot, that proves nothing
>about what is doing that. If it only happens on a reboot, it cant be
>an app doing it, it has to be the OS or the hardware.
Good point, if it is only happening at boot.
>> Also, I would see it happening to the backup disk in D:
>Not necessarily.
>Anyone with a clue would try the boot drive directly connected and see if
>the corruption still occurs.
I had a good reason not to for which I found a good workaround.
> Bet you'll find a reason not to do that obvious test.
Your lost your bet. If I don't want to do something it is not because
I am lazy or obstinate - it's because I believe I have a good reason
not to. Of course I could be wrong, but until I realize that, I am not
going to go off into the weeds.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That is however why I suggested not using Perfect Disk
>for a while, in case it that thats corrupting the MFT.
PerfectDisk is very new - only a month or two old. This problem has
been going on for a year.
Something I just thought of. When I first started using PerfectDisk,
every once in a while it would cause the same corruption problem. I
knew because before I ran PD, I would reboot to make sure the volume
was not corrupt and then I would create a clone backup. Then I would
reboot and run PD and then reboot to see if it corrupted the disk,
Sure enough, a couple times it did and I had to use either the clone I
just made to recover or run chkdsk.
Speaking of clones I think I mentioned this but sometimes you may not
have picked up on it. If I put the clone in the D: without changing
the signature with Win98SE fdisk /mbr, it will always BSOD. That's
because Win2K tried to mount the same device to two disks with
identical signatures. If I use the trick of Win98SE fdisk /mbr on the
D: disk, then I do not get the BSOD. Of course Win2K prompts me to
reboot because it has found a "new device".
So let's imaging the scenario where I have a clone in archive which I
use as the boot disk when the original disk gets corrupted. I mount
this archived clone as the boot disk and mount the bad disk as D: so I
can run chkdsk d: /f on it. Since I changed the signature on the bad
disk to prevent the device conflict and BSOD, and if I don't reboot to
satisfy Win2K's request for a new device, then chkdsk will screw up
the bad disk and it is not recoverable. IOW, it can't even be mounted
any more.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> You still do not appreciate the situation I am in.
>> Wrong.
> Do you depend on your computer every day to
> make money? Or do you just use it for recreation?
Irrelevant to what is possible for YOU to do for a TEST.
>>> I cannot run an empty Win2K.
>> Corse you can for a TEST.
> In order to test the new install, I would
> have to run it full time for several days.
Wrong.
> What am I supposed to do about all the apps I normally
> run in the course of a day? I can't just abandon my routine
> for a test - I need to run the apps every weekday.
I doubt you actually run all that many of them every weekday
and if you do, you can certainly do the other test, try with the
drive directly connected instead of in a removable drive bay.
>>> I have to have applications and that's what I do not
>>> want to do - reinstall applications on a new Win2K.
>> I'm talking about a TEST, not a new config.
> If I do not install enough apps then I can't run the things I need to run.
I doubt that involves all that many apps, and if it does,
you can certainly do the other test, try with the drive
directly connected instead of in a removable drive bay.
>>> If I had another machine I could do it
>> You dont need another machine, just another hard drive for the test.
> How am I going to run two versions of Win2K
> on two separate partitions at the same time?
You dont have to run them at the same time.
>>> although I would not be exercising the
>>> applications since there would not be any.
>> Even you should be able to install just a couple of apps for the TEST.
> You don't realize that I would have to install more than just a couple apps.
Then you can obviously install what you do need to run,
and you can certainly do the other test, try with the drive
directly connected instead of in a removable drive bay.
>>> There is always the possibility that a rogue
>>> application I am running is causing the problem.
>> Unlikely since few apps directly manipulate
>> the MFT, they leave that to the OS.
> What about those that don't?
Its unlikely that you have anything more than Perfect
Disk which doesnt which you run every weekday.
> I did say "rogue applocation".
> I am just guessing so let's assume you
> are right and that is not the problem.
No need to assume anything, its easy to TEST that proposition.
>> That is however why I suggested not using Perfect Disk
>> for a while, in case it that thats corrupting the MFT.
> PerfectDisk is very new - only a month or two old.
> This problem has been going on for a year.
OK, you never made that clear till now.
>>> If I could get a stable baseline for the system,
>>> then I could keep track of what I run each day.
>> You dont need to have a stable baseline to do that.
> Without a stable baseline, I can't be
> sure that any one variable is contibuting.
Wrong, that is just one way to test.
>>>> It'd be hilarious if it turns out to be those
>>>> removable drive bays that are doing it.
>>> I have no evidence to support that.
>> Yes, but it would be worth trying the boot drive directly connected
>> instead of in the removable drive bay to eliminate that possibility
>> since we do know that you can get that result with removable drive bays.
> If I connect it directly, then I have to mount it inside the machine.
> Then when it gets corrupt I can't make it the D: drive without taking it out.
Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it. If it does end up corrupted
when directly connected you would presumably want to put it back in
the removable bay anyway so you can fix it once you have done that.
> Actually that is not quite true. My BIOS allows me to choose
> which disk is the boot disk, so if I wanted the hard mount to
> be D:, I make the disk in the tray the C:.
See above.
> I may do just what you suggest - make one of the disks a
> hard mount bypassing the tray. I may have a cabling problem
> because of the location of the internal vs removable bay.
Unlikely given that its easier to cable an internal than a removable bay.
And even if you did need to get another cable for the test, that is
well worth doing because its very likely what is corrupting the MFT.
> However I have some brackets to turn a 5 1/4: iinto a 3 1/2"
> so I could keep the disk in the same position in the case.
I'd make sure it was a proper legal ATA cable too,
a proper 80 wire flat ribbon cable of legal length. No
point in doing the test with a known non standard cable.
>>> If the removable bays were causing the trouble then I would
>>> see the corruption happening at times other than reboot.
>> You dont know that you dont get it at times other than a reboot.
> U check EV all the time and have never seen it.
All that means is that the OS hasnt noticed it until boot time.
> However it may be that it is not being detected except at boot.
Precisely.
> I can't run chkdsk whenever I want - it must be run at boot.
No it doesnt need to to just CHECK for corruption,
only for FIXING any corruption seen.
> Is there some other diagnostic that can detect a corrupt NTFS
> volume that I could schedule to run periodically while Win2K is running?
You dont need one, chkdsk can do that fine.
>> And even if it does only happen on a reboot, that proves nothing
>> about what is doing that. If it only happens on a reboot, it cant
>> be an app doing it, it has to be the OS or the hardware.
> Good point, if it is only happening at boot.
>>> Also, I would see it happening to the backup disk in D:
>> Not necessarily.
>> Anyone with a clue would try the boot drive directly
>> connected and see if the corruption still occurs.
> I had a good reason not to
No you didnt.
> for which I found a good workaround.
You dont need a workaround. If the directly connected drive
still gets corrupted, you'd presumably want to put it back in the
removable drive bay so you can repair it after you have done that.
>> Bet you'll find a reason not to do that obvious test.
> Your lost your bet.
Not yet, you havent actually done that test yet.
> If I don't want to do something it is not because I am lazy or obstinate
That remains to be seen. You've got one hell
of a capacity for refusing to do the obvious tests.
> - it's because I believe I have a good reason not to.
Thats just the excuse for the bone headedness.
> Of course I could be wrong, but until I realize
> that, I am not going to go off into the weeds.
We'll see...
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> That is however why I suggested not using Perfect Disk
>> for a while, in case it that thats corrupting the MFT.
> PerfectDisk is very new - only a month or two old.
> This problem has been going on for a year.
Like I said, you've only just said that.
> Something I just thought of. When I first started using PerfectDisk,
> every once in a while it would cause the same corruption problem.
> I knew because before I ran PD, I would reboot to make sure the
> volume was not corrupt and then I would create a clone backup.
> Then I would reboot and run PD and then reboot to see if it
> corrupted the disk, Sure enough, a couple times it did and I
> had to use either the clone I just made to recover or run chkdsk.
That would seem to indicate that its actually disk activity that
produces the corruption, supporting the possibility that is just
something as basic as the removable drive tray thats the problem.
There clearly isnt any other app involved
when an ImPerfect Disk run corrupts the drive.
Bet its the removable drive bay or the cable.
> Speaking of clones I think I mentioned this but sometimes
> you may not have picked up on it. If I put the clone in the
> D: without changing the signature with Win98SE fdisk /mbr,
> it will always BSOD. That's because Win2K tried to mount
> the same device to two disks with identical signatures.
I dont believe that claim about 2K, essentially because clones work
fine for others without that abortion involving Win98SE fdisk /mbr
What are you doing the cloning with again ?
> If I use the trick of Win98SE fdisk /mbr on the D: disk,
> then I do not get the BSOD. Of course Win2K prompts
> me to reboot because it has found a "new device".
> So let's imaging the scenario where I have a clone in archive
Not clear what you mean by that last.
> which I use as the boot disk when the original
> disk gets corrupted. I mount this archived clone
Or that either.
> as the boot disk and mount the bad disk as D: so I can run
> chkdsk d: /f on it. Since I changed the signature on the bad
> disk to prevent the device conflict and BSOD, and if I don't
> reboot to satisfy Win2K's request for a new device, then
> chkdsk will screw up the bad disk and it is not recoverable.
> IOW, it can't even be mounted any more.
Cant really understand what you mean
config wise with those 'archive' comments.
Rod Speed
> Citizen Bob <sp...@uce.gov> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> That is however why I suggested not using Perfect Disk
>>> for a while, in case it that thats corrupting the MFT.
>
>> PerfectDisk is very new - only a month or two old.
>> This problem has been going on for a year.
>
> Like I said, you've only just said that.
>
>> Something I just thought of. When I first started using PerfectDisk,
>> every once in a while it would cause the same corruption problem.
>> I knew because before I ran PD, I would reboot to make sure the
>> volume was not corrupt and then I would create a clone backup.
>> Then I would reboot and run PD and then reboot to see if it
>> corrupted the disk, Sure enough, a couple times it did and I
>> had to use either the clone I just made to recover or run chkdsk.
>
> That would seem to indicate that its actually disk activity that
> produces the corruption, supporting the possibility that is just
> something as basic as the removable drive tray thats the problem.
>
> There clearly isnt any other app involved
> when an ImPerfect Disk run corrupts the drive.
> Bet its the removable drive bay or the cable.
And ImPerfect Disk is the obvious thing to use when testing
for corruption, no need to run the normal 2K install for days etc.
kony
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:49:07 -0400, kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>>I still do not know what Registry keys you are referring to.
>
>>I posted them. HKCU-software, HKLM- software,
>>HK-Classes-Root.
>
>I never saw that post. You did not post any Registry keys like the
>ones above on this forum that I can find.
Well you replied to the post I made that listed them, but
you snipped them out of your reply.
>
>I ran a Google Groups Advanced search on this forum with "HKCU" as the
>keyword. I found only this exact post - the one I am replying to right
>here - and one other that had nothing to do with this discussion.
HKEY Current User.
As I already wrote, they're abbreviations, and if you were
actually doing it, you'd see the key in regedit.
>
>Either your computer is broken or you are posting to another group or
>you are hallucinating. But don't take my word for it - check it out
>yourself on Google. If you find it, then I am hallucinating.
You replied to it.
(or tinyURL style):
http://tinyurl.com/yev756
>
>>It shouldn't be though, you're only merging the software
>>keys, not the entire registry, and ideally weeding out
>>software you dont' even have installed anymore before
>>exporting it, but if you want to save time and not weed that
>>stuff out, that's ok too- it'll just be a little clutter
>>opposed to a lot of it and the problem.
>
>If those are the only keys I have to deal with, then I can weed them
>out in a text editor or a Registry editor.
Did you do a clean installation yet?
If not, this is exactly what you are doing wrong, trying to
think on things. You will have spent 3X as much time
thinking on it, as it would've taken to do it.
Remember this is a clean test installation, there is no
thought necessary, you are not jeopardizing data, and you
should be making backups of it. It is not at all necessary
to know the whole process, only to start doing it and go
from there.
>
>>There's no point in typing anything more if you're not going
>>to get the system into a state where it could be applied.
>
>Now that I know what keys to export, I can guage the size of the
>project. It looks doable now, so I will put it on my calendar.
LOL
I give up, don't fix it.
Citizen Bob
>HKCU-software, HKLM- software, HK-Classes-Root.
OK here's what I propose to do to make things easy with my setup.
I will clone the current NTFS boot partition to a new disk but make
the partition only half the disk. I will then create a new install of
Win2K on the second partition. I will mount these as D: (current) and
F: (new).
I will then export the above mentioned keys and save the exports for
later use. I will then copy the new Registry in F: in entirety to the
current partition D:, thereby replacing the entire Registry on D:. I
can copy anything else from the new install F: you think is important.
Then I can import the exported keys into the new Registry on D:.
That way I will have a new install of Win2K without having to copy all
the apps and other stuff. I just need to make sure I get the important
parts of the new install copied to the current partition so it behaves
like a new install.
Citizen Bob
I passed that by because of the way you stated it:
A few of them would tend to be
HKLM-Software, HKCU-Software, and you mentioned classes so
HKCR.
"A few of them" tells me there are more.
"would tend to be" would tend to be.
Those phrases told me you were not sure, so I didn't take them as a
final statement.
So what is your final statement about the Registry keys I must
transfer to make this new install work? Is your last statement
correct:
HKCU-software, HKLM- software, HK-Classes-Root.
Is that correct?
>Did you do a clean installation yet?
I have not done anything yet because I want to be certain what I am
going to do. Statements like
"A few of them" and "would tend to be" does not cut it with me. I
don't need a merry chase. I will try the "clean install" only when I
am confident that it will work.
>If not, this is exactly what you are doing wrong, trying to
>think on things. You will have spent 3X as much time
>thinking on it, as it would've taken to do it.
>Remember this is a clean test installation, there is no
>thought necessary, you are not jeopardizing data, and you
>should be making backups of it. It is not at all necessary
>to know the whole process, only to start doing it and go
>from there.
Please spare us the trite boring lectures. You have spent more time
finger wagging than anything else. You are not my mother so quit
trying to pretend you are.
>>Now that I know what keys to export, I can guage the size of the
>>project. It looks doable now, so I will put it on my calendar.
>LOL
>I give up, don't fix it.
Now it's my turn to finger wag: That is childish.
But if you need to pout, go ahead if it makes you feel better. When
you grow up you will see how stupid that is.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do you depend on your computer every day to
>> make money? Or do you just use it for recreation?
>Irrelevant to what is possible for YOU to do for a TEST.
It is not irrelevant to me. I use my computer in financial
transactions every day, including weekends. I simply cannot stop using
it to run tests.
>> In order to test the new install, I would
>> have to run it full time for several days.
>Wrong.
The problem does not manifest itself for days at a time. I would have
to install all the apps I normally use to perform a valid test and I
would have to do it for at least 1 week. I cannot afford to do that.
Although I do use my computer for recreation like you, I do use it for
finanacial transactions.
>> What am I supposed to do about all the apps I normally
>> run in the course of a day? I can't just abandon my routine
>> for a test - I need to run the apps every weekday.
>I doubt you actually run all that many of them every weekday
You do not know what you are talking about. How could you possibly
know what I run or do not run every weekday?
I do financial transactions every day of the week. The most intense
activity is during the week.
>and if you do,
There is no "if I do". I do run financial transactions every day of
the week.
>you can certainly do the other test, try with the
>drive directly connected instead of in a removable drive bay.
Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot
time? I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
That's also why I do not believe that RAM memory is involved. Anyway I
have run extensive diagnostics on all hard drives and RAM and nothing
shows any signs of failure.
>> If I do not install enough apps then I can't run the things I need to run.
>I doubt that involves all that many apps,
You do not know what you are talking about. How could you possibly
know what I run or do not run every weekday?
I do financial transactions every day of the week. The most intense
activity is during the week. They take quite a few apps to run in
entirety.
>and if it does,
There is no "if I do". I do need a lot of apps.
>you can certainly do the other test, try with the drive
>directly connected instead of in a removable drive bay.
Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot
time? I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
But I plan on doing this test anyway, just to eliminate the
possibility however remote it may be.
>> How am I going to run two versions of Win2K
>> on two separate partitions at the same time?
>You dont have to run them at the same time.
In order to reproduce the conditions that the corruption occurs I need
to run the test 24x7 for at least a week. I cannot reboot anytime or
the test will not be valid.
Now tell me, genius, how am I going to run my apps on the other
partition if I am running the test 24x7?
>Then you can obviously install what you do need to run,
If I do that then I just as well do a clean reinstall and not chase
this problem down.
>>I may have a cabling problem
>> because of the location of the internal vs removable bay.
>Unlikely given that its easier to cable an internal than a removable bay.
Again you do not know what you are talking about. I have two bays
connected to one cable. The second one is near the top of the
computer, whereas the drive I mount permanently is closer to the
bottom. I may not have enough cable to reach both.
However as I said, I have some hardware for mounting 3.5" drives in
5.25" bays, so I can mount the drive next to the removable bay and
circumvent any possible cable problems.
>And even if you did need to get another cable for the test, that is
>well worth doing because its very likely what is corrupting the MFT.
It is not very likely. There is no evidence to support that claim. You
have an intense bigotry against Centronic-based removable bays that is
obsessing you.
Think about it. If the Kingwin KPF style bays I am using are such crap
as you make them out to be, why are they still on the market? Kingwin
is still in business, they are still offering that style bay and I
never hear any complaints about them on this forum or any other.
Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot
time? I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
But I plan on doing this test anyway, just to eliminate the
possibility however remote it may be.
>I'd make sure it was a proper legal ATA cable too,
>a proper 80 wire flat ribbon cable of legal length. No
>point in doing the test with a known non standard cable.
I have stated several times that I have an official ATA133 80-wire
ribbon cable. It has the blue connector on one end to ensure proper
orientation for CS.
>> U check EV all the time and have never seen it.
>All that means is that the OS hasnt noticed it until boot time.
>> However it may be that it is not being detected except at boot.
>Precisely.
However if the filesystem is corrupt at run time, how could it even
function?
>> I can't run chkdsk whenever I want - it must be run at boot.
>No it doesnt need to to just CHECK for corruption,
>only for FIXING any corruption seen.
That only happens at boot time.
>> Is there some other diagnostic that can detect a corrupt NTFS
>> volume that I could schedule to run periodically while Win2K is running?
>You dont need one, chkdsk can do that fine.
But I have to reboot to run chkdsk.
>> If I don't want to do something it is not because I am lazy or obstinate
>That remains to be seen. You've got one hell
>of a capacity for refusing to do the obvious tests.
Please stop with the finger wagging. You are not my wife.
>> - it's because I believe I have a good reason not to.
>Thats just the excuse for the bone headedness.
That's an ad hominem.
I know exactly why you resort to insults. It's because of your
justifiable inferiority complex, which goes with your incredible
overblown ego.
You like to think of yourself as God's gift to computers. You are very
good at it and can solve most problems thrown at you. But every once
in a while you take on a problem, like this one, which you cannot
solve easily. That causes your brittle ego all sorts of pain because
you do not know how to deal with frustration.
That's because your ego is far too overblown for your own good. The
only way you have to cope with this pain and frustration caused by
your justifiable inferiority complex (caused by your overblown ego not
being able to solve every problem you encounter) is to blame someone
for the problem instead of just admitting that you can't solve the
problem immediately.
What you need to do is grow up and accept the fact that you are not
superman when it comes to computers. Accept that there are problems
that you cannot solve immediately.
Yours is the curse of an academic who has to maintain an overblown ego
in front of students. You cannot allow them to know you are not
superman, or you will lose your credibility. However, this insane mind
set you have developed over the year spills over into private life,
like on this forum.
Now let's see what inane defense you put up for this analysis.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That would seem to indicate that its actually disk activity that
>produces the corruption,
I use three identical WD 80 GB drives which I have tested in so many
ways that they are known to be good. I ran a full SpinRight on each of
them overnight. They check out perfectly.
If it were the disks why can I go as long as a week without any
problems?
>supporting the possibility that is just
>something as basic as the removable drive tray thats the problem.
Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot
time? I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
>There clearly isnt any other app involved
>when an ImPerfect Disk run corrupts the drive.
>Bet its the removable drive bay or the cable.
Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot
time? I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
But I plan on doing this test anyway, just to eliminate the
possibility however remote it may be.
>> Speaking of clones I think I mentioned this but sometimes
>> you may not have picked up on it. If I put the clone in the
>> D: without changing the signature with Win98SE fdisk /mbr,
>> it will always BSOD. That's because Win2K tried to mount
>> the same device to two disks with identical signatures.
>I dont believe that claim about 2K, essentially because clones work
>fine for others without that abortion involving Win98SE fdisk /mbr
You are wrong again.
Disk Signature Conflict On Identical Clone Drives
http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm
>What are you doing the cloning with again ?
Acronis True Image. I have a boot CD and it runs the clone offline.
>> If I use the trick of Win98SE fdisk /mbr on the D: disk,
>> then I do not get the BSOD. Of course Win2K prompts
>> me to reboot because it has found a "new device".
>> So let's imaging the scenario where I have a clone in archive
>Not clear what you mean by that last.
I always have two clone disks in archive since I have three identical
disks. One is very recent and the other is less recent.
>> which I use as the boot disk when the original
>> disk gets corrupted. I mount this archived clone
>Or that either.
If I get a corrupt disk that cannot be repaired with the automatic
chkdsk that runs at boot time, I have to mount it as D:. So I use the
most recent clone as the boot disk in C:. But they have the same
signature, so get a BSOD. That's why I have to use Win98SE to replace
the first 4 bytes of the signature with zeros, which forces Win2K to
remount it internally.
>> as the boot disk and mount the bad disk as D: so I can run
>> chkdsk d: /f on it. Since I changed the signature on the bad
>> disk to prevent the device conflict and BSOD, and if I don't
>> reboot to satisfy Win2K's request for a new device, then
>> chkdsk will screw up the bad disk and it is not recoverable.
>> IOW, it can't even be mounted any more.
>Cant really understand what you mean
>config wise with those 'archive' comments.
Archive means the disk sits on a shelf away from the computer. That's
why I use removable drive bays.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And ImPerfect Disk is the obvious thing to use when testing
>for corruption, no need to run the normal 2K install for days etc.
I just ran a Google search on "ImPerfect Disk" and got nothing that is
relevant. Where do I get this ImPerfect Disk?
It sounds like just what I need to check out the disk while it is
running. I can set up a Win2K Schedule to run it periodically,
assuming it can be set up to run quietly in background. If it keeps a
log I can take a look when I choose.
>>> Speaking of clones I think I mentioned this but sometimes
>>> you may not have picked up on it. If I put the clone in the
>>> D: without changing the signature with Win98SE fdisk /mbr,
--
kony
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:24:35 +1100, "Rod Speed"
><rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Do you depend on your computer every day to
>>> make money? Or do you just use it for recreation?
>
>>Irrelevant to what is possible for YOU to do for a TEST.
>
>It is not irrelevant to me. I use my computer in financial
>transactions every day, including weekends. I simply cannot stop using
>it to run tests.
>
This idea you have about how valuable your system use is, is
exactly WHY you should never be relying on a system in this
state.
kony
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:05:56 -0400, kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/yev756
>
>I passed that by because of the way you stated it:
>
> A few of them would tend to be
>HKLM-Software, HKCU-Software, and you mentioned classes so
>HKCR.
>
>"A few of them" tells me there are more.
Yes that's quite possible.
As I already wrote, the key to doing it is NOT what you are
doing, not trying to think on things.
The key is to actually do it.
Actually.
Not think, do.
You are spending hours "thinking" on things then telling us
you haven't the spare time to do what wouldn't have taken
this long.
As already written, this is a bulk process to get most
things working. Some may not work. Maybe you install 5
things again, or maybe you fire up sysinternal's regmon and
see that when you launch the app, it's trying to read a
particular registry entry, so you merely export that parent
key and merge it.
These are basic concepts, which take more time to think on,
than to do. You may not realize this, and that is why I
continually stress not doing what you are doing, which is
anything except the productive path to get it done. I have
been down this road and have advised what addresses your
expressed need, to have minimal time spent, while you
continue to do the opposite, making it the most drawn out
process possible.
>Those phrases told me you were not sure, so I didn't take them as a
>final statement.
Sure of what? I'm sure you need those keys and I'm sure
it's not guaranteed to make 100% of your apps work. This
was already written, that it is a bulk transfer to get the
majority working, then anything remaining will indicate what
to do next, whether it be more registry entries or files,
but each thing done in turn, NOT trying to do everything at
once is the key.
It is important NOT to do everything at once, because we are
trying to isolate the problem, not duplicate the old
installation perfectly which would naturally reproduce the
problem. Thus, the prudent approach is going to be a
conservative transferral of each type of setting, file, etc.
>
>So what is your final statement about the Registry keys I must
>transfer to make this new install work? Is your last statement
>correct:
>
> HKCU-software, HKLM- software, HK-Classes-Root.
>
>Is that correct?
Yes, export each of these, but not merging them. Get new
installation working 100% first.
>
>>Did you do a clean installation yet?
>
>I have not done anything yet because I want to be certain what I am
>going to do.
What you need to do is to NOT try to think ahead. It is a
fluid process and you may need adapt to what happens. For
instance, after merging registry keys you might launch an
app and get a message like vbrun*.dll not found (or
similar), meaning you need to install MS's visual basic
package.
So in this example, you might google search;
http://www.google.com/search?q=Windows+visual+basic+download
... and the first hit is the page to download it, then
install.
Such things may happen, but it's not like you have to do it
for every app, one time and you have the visual basic
support.
>Statements like
>
>"A few of them" and "would tend to be" does not cut it with me. I
>don't need a merry chase. I will try the "clean install" only when I
>am confident that it will work.
Then don't.
You are the one with the problem, and you continue to spend
time, yours and ours, on it. This is the next step and it
doesn't matter if you like to do it, can forsee every step
in a process you are not trying to actually DO, or not,
because you only have 3 options left:
1) Live with the problem. Fine by us, it's not our system
but here you are trying to resolve it, so,
2) Do the clean install. As we've already told you, this
is not a matter of being forced to use the clean install for
your daily work, the clean install is a project done in your
spare time, until you are comfortable with it being finished
enough to revert to using it for your daily activities...
and until then you continue using the current problematic
installation.
3) Quit being so difficult and find an alternate point of
view in another forum. I'm not saying "go away", I'm
suggesting that a forum dedicated to WinXP or 2K might have
someone with more insight into the interworkings of NT/2K/XP
such that they might know a mechanism which causes these
phantom duplicate drive entries. That is, if nothing in
Disk Management is revealing. The stop being difficult part
pertains to DOing it- when someone makes a suggestion you
can't take the "I want comprehensive overview and guarantees
first", attitude, you'll have to take the "roll up sleeves
and try the suggestions", attitude. This should not be a
problem providing you are making backups as you'd claimed,
and must necessarily be doing if you are recovering from
this continual data corruption.
kony
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:49:07 -0400, kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>HKCU-software, HKLM- software, HK-Classes-Root.
>
>OK here's what I propose to do to make things easy with my setup.
>
>I will clone the current NTFS boot partition to a new disk but make
>the partition only half the disk. I will then create a new install of
>Win2K on the second partition. I will mount these as D: (current) and
>F: (new).
>
>I will then export the above mentioned keys and save the exports for
>later use. I will then copy the new Registry in F: in entirety to the
>current partition D:, thereby replacing the entire Registry on D:. I
>can copy anything else from the new install F: you think is important.
That is not what I'd suggested, and not what I'd do, but if
it's what you want to do, go ahead- it's a clone so if one
way doesn't work you can always try another.
>
>Then I can import the exported keys into the new Registry on D:.
>
>That way I will have a new install of Win2K without having to copy all
>the apps and other stuff.
No, you will have the old install of Win2k, and years worth
of clutter, then merely a slimmer registry. This is
exactly what we wanted to avoid, but maybe you get lucky and
find it (remove the problem) this way regardless.
IMO, the way you're doing it is worse, because with your
proposed method, you are trying to include everything except
for some portions of the registry, you are trying to do
exactly what I advised against, not adding everything (but
the few reg keys) at once so there is no way to see when the
problem resurfaces, if it does- but maybe you will get lucky
and it doesn't.
Either way, make the backups of the clean installation
first, and it'll be easy enough to just restore that and try
again if needed.
>I just need to make sure I get the important
>parts of the new install copied to the current partition so it behaves
>like a new install.
It won't behave like a new install, it'll behave like a
bloated OS and by keeping all those old files you may
inadvertently end up running code you didn't want/need
because it was referenced in the registry keys you added.
The best course is MINIMAL transfer, as much as reasonably
possible without it taking a long time. That would mean not
trying to reuse your current installation files with a new
registry, it would mean attempting to use NOTHING from your
old install except things implicitly necessary to get it to
work.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Citizen Bob <sp...@uce.gov> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> You still do not appreciate the situation I am in.
>>>> Wrong.
>>> Do you depend on your computer every day to
>>> make money? Or do you just use it for recreation?
>> Irrelevant to what is possible for YOU to do for a TEST.
> It is not irrelevant to me. I use my computer in financial transactions
> every day, including weekends. I simply cannot stop using it to run tests.
Irrelevant to whether there are plenty of tests you can do in that situation.
>>> In order to test the new install, I would
>>> have to run it full time for several days.
>> Wrong.
> The problem does not manifest itself for days at a time.
Doesnt mean that you have to run the test drive continuously for that time.
Even you should be able to boot it occasionally over that time.
> I would have to install all the apps I normally use to perform a valid test
Wrong when it turns out that you can produce the
corrupted MFT when JUST running ImPerfect Disk.
> and I would have to do it for at least 1 week.
Wrong again.
> I cannot afford to do that.
You dont need to do that.
> Although I do use my computer for recreation
> like you, I do use it for finanacial transactions.
So do I thanks.
>>> What am I supposed to do about all the apps I normally
>>> run in the course of a day? I can't just abandon my routine
>>> for a test - I need to run the apps every weekday.
>> I doubt you actually run all that many of them every weekday
> You do not know what you are talking about.
We'll see...
> How could you possibly know what I run or do not run every weekday?
I do know that you are very unlikely to actually run the
100s of apps you claim to have installed every weekday.
> I do financial transactions every day of the week.
> The most intense activity is during the week.
Irrelevant to how many apps that actually involves.
>> and if you do,
> There is no "if I do". I do run financial
> transactions every day of the week.
Irrelevant to how many apps that actually involves.
>> you can certainly do the other test, try with the drive
>> directly connected instead of in a removable drive bay.
> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?
Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.
> I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
You dont know that because you have never actually tested that.
ALL you know is that no entrys have showed up in the EV reporting a problem.
> That's also why I do not believe that RAM memory is involved.
See above.
> Anyway I have run extensive diagnostics on all hard
> drives and RAM and nothing shows any signs of failure.
Irrelevant to what is clearly corrupting the DATA in the MFT.
>>> If I do not install enough apps then I can't run the things I need to run.
>> I doubt that involves all that many apps,
> You do not know what you are talking about.
We'll see...
> How could you possibly know what I run or do not run every weekday?
I do know that you are very unlikely to actually run the
100s of apps you claim to have installed every weekday.
> I do financial transactions every day of the week.
> The most intense activity is during the week.
Irrelevant to how many apps that actually involves.
> They take quite a few apps to run in entirety.
Irrelevant to how many apps that actually involves.
>> and if it does,
> There is no "if I do". I do need a lot of apps.
Irrelevant to how many apps that actually involves.
>> you can certainly do the other test, try with the drive
>> directly connected instead of in a removable drive bay.
> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?
Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.
> I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
You dont know that because you have never actually tested that.
ALL you know is that no entrys have showed up in the EV reporting a problem.
> But I plan on doing this test anyway, just to
> eliminate the possibility however remote it may be.
Yep, its the only sensible approach because its so easy to do.
>>> How am I going to run two versions of Win2K
>>> on two separate partitions at the same time?
>> You dont have to run them at the same time.
> In order to reproduce the conditions that the corruption
> occurs I need to run the test 24x7 for at least a week.
Wrong. You can just run ImPerfect disk on the clean 2K
install since that does corrupt the MFT on that current install.
> I cannot reboot anytime or the test will not be valid.
Wrong.
> Now tell me, genius, how am I going to run my apps
> on the other partition if I am running the test 24x7?
You dont need to do that, stupid.
>> Then you can obviously install what you do need to run,
> If I do that then I just as well do a clean
> reinstall and not chase this problem down.
Wrong again.
>>> I may have a cabling problem because of
>>> the location of the internal vs removable bay.
>> Unlikely given that its easier to cable an internal than a removable bay.
> Again you do not know what you are talking about.
We'll see...
> I have two bays connected to one cable. The second one is near
> the top of the computer, whereas the drive I mount permanently
> is closer to the bottom. I may not have enough cable to reach both.
You dont need to have both connected to the cable to do the test.
> However as I said, I have some hardware for mounting 3.5"
> drives in 5.25" bays, so I can mount the drive next to the
> removable bay and circumvent any possible cable problems.
>> And even if you did need to get another cable for the test, that is
>> well worth doing because its very likely what is corrupting the MFT.
> It is not very likely.
Corse it is.
> There is no evidence to support that claim.
Wrong again. When running ImPerfect Disk ALONE corrupts the MFT,
there are only two possibilitys now, either its a fucked install of 2K that
is the problem, or its a hardware problem, the removable drive bay,
the cable currently being used, or the drive or the controller.
> You have an intense bigotry against Centronic-based
> removable bays that is obsessing you.
I have seen a number of instances where those have caused
problems, QUITE A FEW OF THEM AT BOOT TIME.
> Think about it. If the Kingwin KPF style bays I am using are such
> crap as you make them out to be, why are they still on the market?
They arent all used with the same motherboard yours is.
If they work fine with some motherboard and not others,
you'd get that effect, they arent a problem in some configs.
> Kingwin is still in business, they are still offering that style bay and
> I never hear any complaints about them on this forum or any other.
Even you should be able to find plenty using groups.google.
> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?
Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.
> I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
You dont know that because you have never actually tested that.
ALL you know is that no entrys have showed up in the EV reporting a problem.
> But I plan on doing this test anyway, just to
> eliminate the possibility however remote it may be.
Yep, its the only sensible approach because its so easy to do.
>> I'd make sure it was a proper legal ATA cable too,
>> a proper 80 wire flat ribbon cable of legal length. No
>> point in doing the test with a known non standard cable.
> I have stated several times that I have
> an official ATA133 80-wire ribbon cable.
Not recently you havent. Even you should have noticed that
I do comment on quite a few system configs over that time.
> It has the blue connector on one end to ensure proper orientation for CS.
>>> U check EV all the time and have never seen it.
>> All that means is that the OS hasnt noticed it until boot time.
>>> However it may be that it is not being detected except at boot.
>> Precisely.
> However if the filesystem is corrupt at run time, how could it even function?
There's plenty of blemishes that still allow it to function.
It was designed to be that robust.
>>> I can't run chkdsk whenever I want - it must be run at boot.
>> No it doesnt need to to just CHECK for corruption,
>> only for FIXING any corruption seen.
> That only happens at boot time.
Wrong.
>>> Is there some other diagnostic that can detect a corrupt NTFS volume
>>> that I could schedule to run periodically while Win2K is running?
>> You dont need one, chkdsk can do that fine.
> But I have to reboot to run chkdsk.
No you dont.
>>> If I don't want to do something it is not because I am lazy or obstinate
>> That remains to be seen. You've got one hell
>> of a capacity for refusing to do the obvious tests.
> Please stop with the finger wagging. You are not my wife.
Go and fuck yourself.
>>> - it's because I believe I have a good reason not to.
>> Thats just the excuse for the bone headedness.
> That's an ad hominem.
<reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs>
Grow up.
Rod Speed
>>> Something I just thought of. When I first started using PerfectDisk,
>>> every once in a while it would cause the same corruption problem.
>>> I knew because before I ran PD, I would reboot to make sure the
>>> volume was not corrupt and then I would create a clone backup.
>>> Then I would reboot and run PD and then reboot to see if it
>>> corrupted the disk, Sure enough, a couple times it did and I
>>> had to use either the clone I just made to recover or run chkdsk.
>> That would seem to indicate that its actually
>> disk activity that produces the corruption,
> I use three identical WD 80 GB drives which I have tested in
> so many ways that they are known to be good. I ran a full
> SpinRight on each of them overnight. They check out perfectly.
Irrelevant to that point.
> If it were the disks
I didnt say it was.
> why can I go as long as a week without any problems?
You'll find out when you identify what is producing the corruption.
>> supporting the possibility that is just something as
>> basic as the removable drive tray thats the problem.
Because it clearly cant be one of the other apps.
> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?
Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.
> I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
You dont know that because you have never actually tested that.
ALL you know is that no entrys have showed up in the EV reporting a problem.
>> There clearly isnt any other app involved
>> when an ImPerfect Disk run corrupts the drive.
>> Bet its the removable drive bay or the cable.
> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?
Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.
> I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
You dont know that because you have never actually tested that.
ALL you know is that no entrys have showed up in the EV reporting a problem.
> But I plan on doing this test anyway, just to
> eliminate the possibility however remote it may be.
Yep, its the only sensible approach because its so easy to do.
>>> Speaking of clones I think I mentioned this but sometimes
>>> you may not have picked up on it. If I put the clone in the
>>> D: without changing the signature with Win98SE fdisk /mbr,
>>> it will always BSOD. That's because Win2K tried to mount
>>> the same device to two disks with identical signatures.
>> I dont believe that claim about 2K, essentially because clones work
>> fine for others without that abortion involving Win98SE fdisk /mbr
> You are wrong again.
We'll see...
> Disk Signature Conflict On Identical Clone Drives
> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm
Doesnt say anything like your claim above.
>> What are you doing the cloning with again ?
> Acronis True Image. I have a boot CD and it runs the clone offline.
>>> If I use the trick of Win98SE fdisk /mbr on the D: disk,
>>> then I do not get the BSOD. Of course Win2K prompts
>>> me to reboot because it has found a "new device".
>>> So let's imaging the scenario where I have a clone in archive
>> Not clear what you mean by that last.
> I always have two clone disks in archive since I have three
> identical disks. One is very recent and the other is less recent.
OK, I realised that you had that many physical drives,
just wouldnt have called that an archive myself.
>>> which I use as the boot disk when the original
>>> disk gets corrupted. I mount this archived clone
>> Or that either.
I just meant the use of the word 'archived' there.
Citizen Bob
>This idea you have about how valuable your system use is, is
>exactly WHY you should never be relying on a system in this
>state.
I have two clones, and I know how to recover. That gets me by.
I make sure that I have at least one archive disk (disk on the shelf)
that works. The way I know it works is I reboot it and if it works I
immediately clone it, then I put it on the shelf. Then I boot the
clone I just made and if it works too I know the original I just put
on the shelf works.
If something in that sequence goes wrong, I immediately fix it. For
example if the clone is broken, I fix it and use it to fix the source
from which it is made, then I start over with the source disk and redo
the above procedure.
Yeah, I know - it's a pain in the ass. That's why I am willing to try
your "clean install" procedure after I make damn sure it is going to
work.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The problem does not manifest itself for days at a time.
>Doesnt mean that you have to run the test drive continuously for that time.
>Even you should be able to boot it occasionally over that time.
I have done that as a test - reboot an uncorrupt disk several times
during the day. That's exactly what I did with both the new FAT32 and
the new NTFS I made the other day. Both passed the test every time.
I did not run the FAT32 for a week so I will not know if it would have
worked. I may go back to FAT32 when I figure out what would happen if
one of my DVD applications built a temp file that is larger than 4 GB.
For all I know, that never happens.
The main reason I went back to NTFS was a comment you made (actually
it was one of your famous pontifications) that if I converted the
FAT32 to a new NTFS filesystem it would not get corrupted.
Unfortunately you were wrong, because when I let the system go about 3
days between reboots, it got corrupted.
I can convert over to FAT32 again (I can do it in my sleep now).
>> I would have to install all the apps I normally use to perform a valid test
>Wrong when it turns out that you can produce the
>corrupted MFT when JUST running ImPerfect Disk.
>> and I would have to do it for at least 1 week.
>Wrong again.
You are assuming that the corruption occurs while running instead of
when I shut down for a reboot. There is no evidence to support that.
>> How could you possibly know what I run or do not run every weekday?
>I do know that you are very unlikely to actually run the
>100s of apps you claim to have installed every weekday.
That does not mean I do not run many of them.
>> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?
>Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.
Actually I suspect the corruption occurs at shutdown. I even tried
disabling the write thru cache but it did not help. Then I tried
setting the Registry key that tells Win2K to do a cleanup of the
system files at shutdown, but that did not work either.
>> I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
>
>You dont know that because you have never actually tested that.
>ALL you know is that no entrys have showed up in the EV reporting a problem.
I agree and that's why I will run ImPerfect Disk when you tell me
where to get it.
>Irrelevant to what is clearly corrupting the DATA in the MFT.
Is that where Win2K keeps the so-called "security descripters"?
BTW, when a corrupt disk occurs and Win2K runs chkdsk at boot time
automatically, the repair is almost always the same, which seems to
indicate that whatever is causing the corruption is almost always the
same thing.
When chkdsk at reboot is unable to clean up the mess (and I get a
BSOD), or I get a BSOD before it even gets to run chkdsk - and I have
to mount the disk as D: to run chkdsk from inside Win2K, the repair is
considerably more extensive. Chkdsk fills several screens with repair
comments, most of which is fixing security descripters.
I have run System File Checker (SFC) a couple of times in the outside
chance that I had a virus. I have swept the disk several times with
Ad-Aware and Avast. No viruses detected.
>> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?
>Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.
Yes, but there is even more disk activity when I am running yet there
is no indication of disc corruption.
Actually that is not completely true. There was a brief period when
the system would reboot itself while running. I thought it could be
from a corrupt disk during run time. But it did not run chkdsk when it
rebooted and there was no EV record about a corrupt NTFS volume. I
even forced chkdsk on reboot and nothing was wrong.
But that random rebooting went away months ago and I have never
experienced it since.
>> But I plan on doing this test anyway, just to
>> eliminate the possibility however remote it may be.
>Yep, its the only sensible approach because its so easy to do.
But first I want to run ImPerfect Disk.
>Wrong again. When running ImPerfect Disk ALONE corrupts the MFT,
>there are only two possibilitys now, either its a fucked install of 2K that
>is the problem, or its a hardware problem, the removable drive bay,
>the cable currently being used, or the drive or the controller.
You want me to run ImPerfect Disk by itself? I can do that overnight
for 12 hours.
>I have seen a number of instances where those have caused
>problems, QUITE A FEW OF THEM AT BOOT TIME.
Then I need to connect the boot disk directly. I would be very happy
of that turns out to be the problem because I can work around it with
my cloning system. I would have to tell the BIOS to boot off of a disk
in the removable bay so the direct-connected one is D: and therefore I
can run chkdsk on it from inside Win2K.
>> However if the filesystem is corrupt at run time, how could it even function?
>There's plenty of blemishes that still allow it to function.
>It was designed to be that robust.
Especially since I am running a 2 GB pagefile in memory. I still think
it's during shutdown that the problem occurs. If I had the time and
patience, I would take every disk I shutdown and before I rebooted it,
I would mount it as D: so I could run chkdks on it. That way I would
find out if the problem occurs at reboot. But that is a lot of work
and I would rather dedicate my limited resources to things that are
more direct.
>> But I have to reboot to run chkdsk.
>No you dont.
How do you propose to run chkdsk without rebooting or without
remounting the disk as D:?
>> Please stop with the finger wagging. You are not my wife.
>Go and fuck yourself.
Jeez, you can sure disk it out, but you can't take it. That's a sure
sign of a brittle overblown ego.
>>> Thats just the excuse for the bone headedness.
>> That's an ad hominem.
><reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs>
Jeez, you can sure disk it out, but you can't take it. That's a sure
sign of a brittle overblown ego.
>Grow up.
You grow up - you need to a lot more than me.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?
>Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.
My vote is that the corruption occurs during shutdown, when Win2K
writes the memory-resident part to the system files, the pagefile and
the MFT.
>> Disk Signature Conflict On Identical Clone Drives
>> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm
>Doesnt say anything like your claim above.
It explains why I must use Win98SE fdisk to clear the signature.
>OK, I realised that you had that many physical drives,
>just wouldnt have called that an archive myself.
It's shorter than "removable disk I put on the shelf".
>I just meant the use of the word 'archived' there.
You speak Oz English, which is like Pom English. I speak Real English,
the same as most of the world's computers. The Real English meaning of
"archive" is found in an Real English American dictionary like
Websters Online:
archive: the material preserved
Citizen Bob
>> A few of them would tend to be
>>HKLM-Software, HKCU-Software, and you mentioned classes so
>>HKCR.
>>"A few of them" tells me there are more.
>Yes that's quite possible.
>As I already wrote, the key to doing it is NOT what you are
>doing, not trying to think on things.
>The key is to actually do it.
>Actually.
>Not think, do.
I do not have time to run around on merry chases. Either I know what I
am going to do has a good chance of success or I pass it by.
>You are spending hours "thinking" on things then telling us
>you haven't the spare time to do what wouldn't have taken
>this long.
I am doing that in hope of running this problem down. I am confident
that you experts will come across something along the way that points
us to the problem. We already have a lot of data, but there are a
couple things still missing.
>As already written, this is a bulk process to get most
>things working. Some may not work. Maybe you install 5
>things again, or maybe you fire up sysinternal's regmon and
>see that when you launch the app, it's trying to read a
>particular registry entry, so you merely export that parent
>key and merge it.
I just as well reinstall Windows and all my apps as do that.
>These are basic concepts, which take more time to think on,
>than to do. You may not realize this, and that is why I
>continually stress not doing what you are doing, which is
>anything except the productive path to get it done. I have
>been down this road and have advised what addresses your
>expressed need, to have minimal time spent, while you
>continue to do the opposite, making it the most drawn out
>process possible.
You must think I sit around looking for things to do. That is not the
case. I am always busy with something.
If I had more confidence that this Registry stunt of yours would
really work, then I would give it a try. But it sounds like you are
just throwing shit on the wall in the outside chance it will work,
maybe. I need more confidence before I embark on a long project such
as we discussed.
My problem with what you propose - exporting three Registry keys - is
that the Registry has a lot more configuration information that is
specific to applications than just 3 keys. If I don't export that,
then I am not going to get a "clean install", as you call it. The
search for more keys could take days. Then I could leave behind some
keys that I do not discover are missing until months later, in which
it is too late to go back and export them because the apps have
changed their configuration and the exported keys do not have that
information.
Whoever came up with that Registry crap should be executed so his
screwed up genes do not contaminate the human race. People do not have
this kind of nightmare to deal with on UNIX, because configurations
are file-based. It is much easier to deal with a flat file than a data
base.
>>Those phrases told me you were not sure, so I didn't take them as a
>>final statement.
>Sure of what? I'm sure you need those keys and I'm sure
>it's not guaranteed to make 100% of your apps work. This
>was already written, that it is a bulk transfer to get the
>majority working, then anything remaining will indicate what
>to do next, whether it be more registry entries or files,
>but each thing done in turn, NOT trying to do everything at
>once is the key.
>
>It is important NOT to do everything at once, because we are
>trying to isolate the problem, not duplicate the old
>installation perfectly which would naturally reproduce the
>problem. Thus, the prudent approach is going to be a
>conservative transferral of each type of setting, file, etc.
That makes more sense than your earlier terse comments. But it still
involves a lot of work chasing after things that I know nothing about.
>> HKCU-software, HKLM- software, HK-Classes-Root.
>>Is that correct?
>Yes, export each of these, but not merging them. Get new
>installation working 100% first.
Of course.
>>>Did you do a clean installation yet?
>>
>>I have not done anything yet because I want to be certain what I am
>>going to do.
>
>What you need to do is to NOT try to think ahead. It is a
>fluid process and you may need adapt to what happens. For
>instance, after merging registry keys you might launch an
>app and get a message like vbrun*.dll not found (or
>similar), meaning you need to install MS's visual basic
>package.
>
>So in this example, you might google search;
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=Windows+visual+basic+download
>
>... and the first hit is the page to download it, then
>install.
I kept every app and its support files in a ZIP directory. However if
I did have to reinstall, I would consider getting the latest version
so I can at least be updated.
> you only have 3 options left:
You left out going back to a FAT32 system and hoping none of my apps
ever builds a 4 GB file.
Which is what I may do because I never really tested it.
In fact that is exactly what I am going to do before I do anything
else. I can do a FAT32 conversion in my sleep, so it's no big deal. I
actually have the last one but it is dated by now so it would be
better just to make one with this current version of the operating
system and applications. I have installed a lot of new stuff for my
JP1 project I am working on now, including an update of Java.
Let's run the FAT32 for a full week or two and see what happens. I
realize you don't care for FAT32 because it can lead to lost files.
But that's with Win9x or WinME, not Win2K.
Citizen Bob
>>I will then export the above mentioned keys and save the exports for
>>later use. I will then copy the new Registry in F: in entirety to the
>>current partition D:, thereby replacing the entire Registry on D:. I
>>can copy anything else from the new install F: you think is important.
>That is not what I'd suggested, and not what I'd do, but if
>it's what you want to do, go ahead- it's a clone so if one
>way doesn't work you can always try another.
>>Then I can import the exported keys into the new Registry on D:.
>>That way I will have a new install of Win2K without having to copy all
>>the apps and other stuff.
>No, you will have the old install of Win2k, and years worth
>of clutter, then merely a slimmer registry. This is
>exactly what we wanted to avoid, but maybe you get lucky and
>find it (remove the problem) this way regardless.
>
>IMO, the way you're doing it is worse,
I agree. Forget I mentioned it. If I do a clean install I will have to
do it your way to avoid carrying over any contamination.
However, I would rather just do a new install including all my apps
than to go thru all those contortions. That would guarantee no
contamination.
Of course if I did it that way I would first copy over the Profiles
and install a minimum number of apps to keep productive for my most
important projects. The other stuff I would have to put on hold.
But them if I do that, why not install XP Pro and use its wizard to
move everything from Win2K. I suppose I can learn to live with XP if I
use the compatibility mode. I was wanting to wait for Vista but I
never install a new version of Windows without the first SP out and
tested, and that could be a couple years with Vista. Therefore I
should consider XP for the interim. My son has been running XP for
years and he likes it, so it can't be all that bad.
Then I can slowly install my other apps, taking the opportunity to
upgrade them as I install each one.
It sounds like a plan, but first I want to squeeze the last bit of
life out of Win2K. That's why I am going to convert back to FAT32 and
give it a chance to hang itself by running it a couple weeks.
Rod Speed
> kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote
>> This idea you have about how valuable your system use is, is
>> exactly WHY you should never be relying on a system in this state.
> I have two clones, and I know how to recover. That gets me by.
For now, until the MFT gets so corrupted that even chkdsk cant
save you and you lose whats happened since the last clone.
> I make sure that I have at least one archive disk (disk on the shelf)
> that works. The way I know it works is I reboot it and if it works I
> immediately clone it, then I put it on the shelf. Then I boot the
> clone I just made and if it works too I know the original I just put
> on the shelf works.
Pity about what you do on that system since you do that.
> If something in that sequence goes wrong, I immediately fix it.
Remains to be seen if that is always possible.
> For example if the clone is broken, I fix it and use it to
> fix the source from which it is made, then I start over
> with the source disk and redo the above procedure.
> Yeah, I know - it's a pain in the ass. That's why I am willing to try your
> "clean install" procedure after I make damn sure it is going to work.
We'll see...
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> The problem does not manifest itself for days at a time.
>> Doesnt mean that you have to run the test drive continuously for that
>> time. Even you should be able to boot it occasionally over that time.
> I have done that as a test - reboot an uncorrupt disk several times
> during the day. That's exactly what I did with both the new FAT32 and
> the new NTFS I made the other day. Both passed the test every time.
Doesnt prove much about a problem that you claim can take a week to manifest.
> I did not run the FAT32 for a week so I will not know if it would
> have worked. I may go back to FAT32 when I figure out what
> would happen if one of my DVD applications built a temp file
> that is larger than 4 GB. For all I know, that never happens.
Digital TV capture cards will do that, guaranteed.
> The main reason I went back to NTFS was a comment you made
> (actually it was one of your famous pontifications) that if I converted
> the FAT32 to a new NTFS filesystem it would not get corrupted.
I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
> Unfortunately you were wrong,
Nope, because I never ever said anything
even remotely resembling anything like that.
> because when I let the system go about
> 3 days between reboots, it got corrupted.
All that proves is that the fault has nothing
to do with the file system being used.
> I can convert over to FAT32 again (I can do it in my sleep now).
Must be one of those rocket scientist boneheads.
>>> I would have to install all the apps
>>> I normally use to perform a valid test
>> Wrong when it turns out that you can produce the
>> corrupted MFT when JUST running ImPerfect Disk.
>>> and I would have to do it for at least 1 week.
>> Wrong again.
> You are assuming that the corruption occurs while
> running instead of when I shut down for a reboot.
Nope, that claim you made shows that it cant be
a specific app thats corrupting the MFT since you
claimed that you saw that corruption before running PD.
That is one possibility completely eliminated.
> There is no evidence to support that.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>>> How could you possibly know what I run or do not run every weekday?
>> I do know that you are very unlikely to actually run the
>> 100s of apps you claim to have installed every weekday.
> That does not mean I do not run many of them.
Never ever said it did.
>>> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?
>> Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.
> Actually I suspect the corruption occurs at shutdown. I even
> tried disabling the write thru cache but it did not help. Then I
> tried setting the Registry key that tells Win2K to do a cleanup
> of the system files at shutdown, but that did not work either.
And I have told you how to prove whether
its just bootup or shutdown thats the problem.
>>> I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.
>> You dont know that because you have never actually tested that. ALL
>> you know is that no entrys have showed up in the EV reporting a problem.
> I agree and that's why I will run ImPerfect Disk when you tell me where to get it.
Pathetic, really.
>> Irrelevant to what is clearly corrupting the DATA in the MFT.
> Is that where Win2K keeps the so-called "security descripters"?
> BTW, when a corrupt disk occurs and Win2K runs chkdsk
> at boot time automatically, the repair is almost always the
> same, which seems to indicate that whatever is causing
> the corruption is almost always the same thing.
It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if it wasnt.
> When chkdsk at reboot is unable to clean up the mess (and I get a
> BSOD), or I get a BSOD before it even gets to run chkdsk - and I have
> to mount the disk as D: to run chkdsk from inside Win2K, the repair is
> considerably more extensive. Chkdsk fills several screens with repair
> comments, most of which is fixing security descripters.
> I have run System File Checker (SFC) a couple of times in
> the outside chance that I had a virus. I have swept the disk
> several times with Ad-Aware and Avast. No viruses detected.
It wont be a virus.
>>> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?
>> Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.
> Yes, but there is even more disk activity when I am running yet
Wrong.
> there is no indication of disc corruption.
You dont know that because you have never actually tested that.
ALL you know is that no entrys have showed up in the EV reporting a problem.
> Actually that is not completely true. There was a brief period when
> the system would reboot itself while running. I thought it could be
> from a corrupt disk during run time. But it did not run chkdsk when it
> rebooted and there was no EV record about a corrupt NTFS volume.
> I even forced chkdsk on reboot and nothing was wrong.
> But that random rebooting went away months
> ago and I have never experienced it since.
Unlikely to be relevant.
>>> But I plan on doing this test anyway, just to
>>> eliminate the possibility however remote it may be.
>> Yep, its the only sensible approach because its so easy to do.
> But first I want to run ImPerfect Disk.
Pathetic, really.
>> Wrong again. When running ImPerfect Disk ALONE corrupts the
>> MFT, there are only two possibilitys now, either its a fucked install
>> of 2K that is the problem, or its a hardware problem, the removable
>> drive bay, the cable currently being used, or the drive or the controller.
> You want me to run ImPerfect Disk by itself?
Nope, I want you to connect the boot drive directly, and run PD
repeatedly and see if you get any corruption of the MFT when you do that.
> I can do that overnight for 12 hours.
It would be a better test to check for corruption of the MFT after each PD run.
>> I have seen a number of instances where those have caused
>> problems, QUITE A FEW OF THEM AT BOOT TIME.
> Then I need to connect the boot disk directly.
What I said months ago.
> I would be very happy of that turns out to be the problem because
> I can work around it with my cloning system. I would have to tell the
> BIOS to boot off of a disk in the removable bay so the direct-connected
> one is D: and therefore I can run chkdsk on it from inside Win2K.
Pointless worrying about what to do until you
work out what is producing the corruption.
>>> However if the filesystem is corrupt at run time, how could it even function?
>> There's plenty of blemishes that still allow it to function.
>> It was designed to be that robust.
> Especially since I am running a 2 GB pagefile in memory.
Fark. What else are you doing like that that you havent even mentioned ?
> I still think it's during shutdown that the problem occurs. If I had
> the time and patience, I would take every disk I shutdown and
> before I rebooted it, I would mount it as D: so I could run chkdks
> on it. That way I would find out if the problem occurs at reboot.
> But that is a lot of work and I would rather dedicate my limited
> resources to things that are more direct.
Doesnt matter when it happens, what matters is what is causing it.
>>> But I have to reboot to run chkdsk.
>> No you dont.
> How do you propose to run chkdsk without
> rebooting or without remounting the disk as D:?
You cant actually be THAT stupid.
>>> Please stop with the finger wagging. You are not my wife.
>> Go and fuck yourself.
> Jeez, you can sure disk it out, but you can't take it.
I can take it fine, I choose to tell you go and fuck
yourself when you try puerile stuff like that.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Why would the removable bay corrupt
>>> an NTFS partition only at boot time?
>> Because even you should have noticed
>> considerable drive activity at boot time.
> My vote is that the corruption occurs during shutdown,
Irrelevant whether its shutdown or bootup, what matters is why it happens.
> when Win2K writes the memory-resident part
> to the system files, the pagefile and the MFT.
It doesnt do that either.
>>> Disk Signature Conflict On Identical Clone Drives
>>> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm
>> Doesnt say anything like your claim above.
> It explains why I must use Win98SE fdisk to clear the signature.
No it doesnt.
>> OK, I realised that you had that many physical drives,
>> just wouldnt have called that an archive myself.
> It's shorter than "removable disk I put on the shelf".
But less obvious what you meant.
>> I just meant the use of the word 'archived' there.
> You speak Oz English, which is like Pom English.
Wrong, as always.
> I speak Real English,
Wrong, as always.
> the same as most of the world's computers. The Real
> English meaning of "archive" is found in an Real English
> American dictionary like Websters Online:
> archive: the material preserved
Pathetic, really.
Rod Speed
> kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote
>>> A few of them would tend to be HKLM-Software,
>>> HKCU-Software, and you mentioned classes so HKCR.
>>> "A few of them" tells me there are more.
>> Yes that's quite possible.
>> As I already wrote, the key to doing it is NOT what you are
>> doing, not trying to think on things.
>> The key is to actually do it.
>> Actually.
>> Not think, do.
> I do not have time to run around on merry chases. Either I know
> what I am going to do has a good chance of success or I pass it by.
And spend the NEXT year with your dick in
your hand, just like you did with the last one.
>> You are spending hours "thinking" on things then telling us you
>> haven't the spare time to do what wouldn't have taken this long.
> I am doing that in hope of running this problem down. I am
> confident that you experts will come across something along
> the way that points us to the problem. We already have a
> lot of data, but there are a couple things still missing.
Pity you refuse to try what will prove where the problem is.
We aint gunna keep bothering with you for years, you watch.
>> As already written, this is a bulk process to get most things
>> working. Some may not work. Maybe you install 5 things
>> again, or maybe you fire up sysinternal's regmon and see
>> that when you launch the app, it's trying to read a particular
>> registry entry, so you merely export that parent key and merge it.
> I just as well reinstall Windows and all my apps as do that.
Yep, anyone with a clue would try a move to XP using the
files and settings transfer wizard and see if you still get the
corruption in that situation, after its been proven that the
problem isnt the removable drive bay and the cable.
Corse you will play silly buggers for another year instead.
>> These are basic concepts, which take more time to think on,
>> than to do. You may not realize this, and that is why I
>> continually stress not doing what you are doing, which is
>> anything except the productive path to get it done. I have
>> been down this road and have advised what addresses your
>> expressed need, to have minimal time spent, while you
>> continue to do the opposite, making it the most drawn out
>> process possible.
> You must think I sit around looking for things to do.
Nope, he realises that even a terminal bonehead like you should
be able to grasp that if you havent managed to work out what
is producing the corruption in a YEAR, its time to cut to the chase
and do some VERY basic tests like see what happens with the
drive directly connect and if that turns out to not be the problem
prove whether is a fucked 2K install.
> That is not the case. I am always busy with something.
Wasting your time for a YEAR or more. Having fun ?
> If I had more confidence that this Registry stunt of yours
> would really work, then I would give it a try. But it sounds
> like you are just throwing shit on the wall in the outside
> chance it will work, maybe. I need more confidence
> before I embark on a long project such as we discussed.
Your problem.
> My problem with what you propose - exporting three Registry
> keys - is that the Registry has a lot more configuration information
> that is specific to applications than just 3 keys. If I don't export that,
> then I am not going to get a "clean install", as you call it. The search
> for more keys could take days.
Sure beats YEARS.
> Then I could leave behind some keys that I do not discover are missing
> until months later, in which it is too late to go back and export them
Nope, you can keep that drive with that config on it.
> because the apps have changed their configuration
> and the exported keys do not have that information.
Pathetic, really.
> Whoever came up with that Registry crap should be executed
> so his screwed up genes do not contaminate the human race.
Boneheads like you in spades. Pity its too late in your case.
> People do not have this kind of nightmare to deal with
> on UNIX, because configurations are file-based. It is
> much easier to deal with a flat file than a data base.
No one is holding a gun to your head and stopping you from using it.
If they are, call the cops.
>>> Those phrases told me you were not sure,
>>> so I didn't take them as a final statement.
>> Sure of what? I'm sure you need those keys and I'm sure
>> it's not guaranteed to make 100% of your apps work. This
>> was already written, that it is a bulk transfer to get the
>> majority working, then anything remaining will indicate what
>> to do next, whether it be more registry entries or files,
>> but each thing done in turn, NOT trying to do everything at
>> once is the key.
>> It is important NOT to do everything at once, because we are
>> trying to isolate the problem, not duplicate the old
>> installation perfectly which would naturally reproduce the
>> problem. Thus, the prudent approach is going to be a
>> conservative transferral of each type of setting, file, etc.
> That makes more sense than your earlier terse comments. But it still
> involves a lot of work chasing after things that I know nothing about.
STILL leave farting about for YEARS for dead.
>>> HKCU-software, HKLM- software,
>>> HK-Classes-Root. Is that correct?
>> Yes, export each of these, but not merging them.
>> Get new installation working 100% first.
> Of course.
>>>> Did you do a clean installation yet?
>
>>> I have not done anything yet because I want to be certain what I am
>>> going to do.
>>
>> What you need to do is to NOT try to think ahead. It is a
>> fluid process and you may need adapt to what happens. For
>> instance, after merging registry keys you might launch an
>> app and get a message like vbrun*.dll not found (or similar),
>> meaning you need to install MS's visual basic package.
>> So in this example, you might google search;
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=Windows+visual+basic+download
>> ... and the first hit is the page to download it, then install.
> I kept every app and its support files in a ZIP directory.
> However if I did have to reinstall, I would consider
> getting the latest version so I can at least be updated.
>> you only have 3 options left:
> You left out going back to a FAT32 system and
> hoping none of my apps ever builds a 4 GB file.
The digital TV card is absolutely guaranteed to do that.
> Which is what I may do because I never really tested it.
> In fact that is exactly what I am going to do before I do anything
> else. I can do a FAT32 conversion in my sleep, so it's no big deal.
> I actually have the last one but it is dated by now so it would be
> better just to make one with this current version of the operating
> system and applications. I have installed a lot of new stuff for my
> JP1 project I am working on now, including an update of Java.
> Let's run the FAT32 for a full week or two and see what happens.
> I realize you don't care for FAT32 because it can lead to lost files.
> But that's with Win9x or WinME, not Win2K.
Pathetic, really.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have two clones, and I know how to recover. That gets me by.
>For now, until the MFT gets so corrupted that even chkdsk cant
>save you and you lose whats happened since the last clone.
Wrong again. I maintain a differential backup on the Backup drive,
which is the second removable drive bay. It runs at 4:00 am, and I
force it to run manually before I reboot.
>Pity about what you do on that system since you do that.
Don't sweat it,
>> If something in that sequence goes wrong, I immediately fix it.
>Remains to be seen if that is always possible.
It has been possible for over a year.
>> Yeah, I know - it's a pain in the ass. That's why I am willing to try your
>> "clean install" procedure after I make damn sure it is going to work.
>We'll see...
I will decide what to do next when I get time.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Doesnt mean that you have to run the test drive continuously for that
>>> time. Even you should be able to boot it occasionally over that time.
>> I have done that as a test - reboot an uncorrupt disk several times
>> during the day. That's exactly what I did with both the new FAT32 and
>> the new NTFS I made the other day. Both passed the test every time.
>Doesnt prove much about a problem that you claim can take a week to manifest.
Do you realize you just contradicted yourself. It is you who said
"Even you should be able to boot it occasionally over that time."
Then you turn around and claim that:
"Doesnt prove much about a problem that you claim can take a week to
manifest."
That's what I have been trying to tell you, but you are so boneheaded
you won't listen.
>> I did not run the FAT32 for a week so I will not know if it would
>> have worked. I may go back to FAT32 when I figure out what
>> would happen if one of my DVD applications built a temp file
>> that is larger than 4 GB. For all I know, that never happens.
>Digital TV capture cards will do that, guaranteed.
So will authoring applications.
But I feel that something can be learned by running a FAT32 for a week
or two. I would still be doing it if it weren't for you talking me
into going back to NTFS with your claim that it won't corrupt now that
I have a clean install of the filesystem.
>> The main reason I went back to NTFS was a comment you made
>> (actually it was one of your famous pontifications) that if I converted
>> the FAT32 to a new NTFS filesystem it would not get corrupted.
>I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
Look it up. You did say it, in passing.
>> Unfortunately you were wrong,
>Nope, because I never ever said anything
>even remotely resembling anything like that.
You have a poor memory.
But not to worry - I was willing to take the chance that it would be
true. We actually learned something by this, namely a clean install of
NTFS won't solve the problem.
>> because when I let the system go about
>> 3 days between reboots, it got corrupted.
>All that proves is that the fault has nothing
>to do with the file system being used.
You don't know if a FAT32 will corrupt.
>> I agree and that's why I will run ImPerfect Disk when you tell me where to get it.
>Pathetic, really.
It's you who is pathetic.
>> But first I want to run ImPerfect Disk.
>Pathetic, really.
LOL. I had you going for a while, didn't I? You are not the only one
who knows how to be sarcastic.
>> Especially since I am running a 2 GB pagefile in memory.
>Fark. What else are you doing like that that you havent even mentioned ?
What do you want to know?
>> How do you propose to run chkdsk without
>> rebooting or without remounting the disk as D:?
>You cant actually be THAT stupid.
Win2K won't let me run chkdsk on the boot disk while it is running. It
schedules chkdsk for boot time.
Here's what happens when I try:
+++
C:\>chkdsk c: /f
The type of the file system is NTFS.
Cannot lock current drive.
Chkdsk cannot run because the volume is in use by another
process. Would you like to schedule this volume to be
checked the next time the system restarts? (Y/N)
+++
So tell me how I can run chkdsk on C: when it is the active boot
partition.
>>>> Please stop with the finger wagging. You are not my wife.
>>> Go and fuck yourself.
>> Jeez, you can sure disk it out, but you can't take it.
>I can take it fine, I choose to tell you go and fuck
>yourself when you try puerile stuff like that.
Go and fuck yourself.
><reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs>
Jeez, you can sure disk it out, but you can't take it.
--
Citizen Bob
Congratulations. You managed to get thru an entire post without saying
anything constructive. You must have a lot of time on your hands.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> People do not have this kind of nightmare to deal with
>> on UNIX, because configurations are file-based. It is
>> much easier to deal with a flat file than a data base.
>No one is holding a gun to your head and stopping you from using it.
Most applications I use only run on Windows.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> I have two clones, and I know how to recover. That gets me by.
>> For now, until the MFT gets so corrupted that even chkdsk cant
>> save you and you lose whats happened since the last clone.
> Wrong again.
We'll see...
> I maintain a differential backup on the Backup drive,
> which is the second removable drive bay. It runs at
> 4:00 am, and I force it to run manually before I reboot.
You'll still lose some data if the problem gets worse
than it currently is and chkdsk cant fix it, stupid.
>> Pity about what you do on that system since you do that.
> Don't sweat it,
Yeah, I couldnt care less if you lost the lot. Bet you wouldnt
have the balls to admit that you had fucked up completely.
>>> If something in that sequence goes wrong, I immediately fix it.
>> Remains to be seen if that is always possible.
> It has been possible for over a year.
Proves nothing.
>>> Yeah, I know - it's a pain in the ass. That's why I am willing to try your
>>> "clean install" procedure after I make damn sure it is going to work.
>> We'll see...
> I will decide what to do next when I get time.
The answer is obvious, try the directly connected drive first,
because that is the least effort to try and those removable
drive bays are known to cause problems in some configs.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> People do not have this kind of nightmare to deal with
>>> on UNIX, because configurations are file-based. It is
>>> much easier to deal with a flat file than a data base.
>> No one is holding a gun to your head and stopping you from using it.
> Most applications I use only run on Windows.
Your problem.
And a rocket scientist bonehead should be able to work out how to do that with linux too.
Rod Speed
Pathetic, really.
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Doesnt mean that you have to run the test drive continuously for that
>>>> time. Even you should be able to boot it occasionally over that time.
>>> I have done that as a test - reboot an uncorrupt disk several times
>>> during the day. That's exactly what I did with both the new FAT32 and
>>> the new NTFS I made the other day. Both passed the test every time.
>> Doesnt prove much about a problem that you claim can take a week to manifest.
> Do you realize you just contradicted yourself.
No I didnt.
> It is you who said
> "Even you should be able to boot it occasionally over that time."
> Then you turn around and claim that:
> "Doesnt prove much about a problem that
> you claim can take a week to manifest."
That last is when you dont reboot for a week or so, stupid.
> That's what I have been trying to tell you,
Pity you never could grasp that there is no contradiction there.
>>> I did not run the FAT32 for a week so I will not know if it would
>>> have worked. I may go back to FAT32 when I figure out what
>>> would happen if one of my DVD applications built a temp file
>>> that is larger than 4 GB. For all I know, that never happens.
>> Digital TV capture cards will do that, guaranteed.
> So will authoring applications.
Indeed.
> But I feel that something can be learned
> by running a FAT32 for a week or two.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to try the drive directly connected instead.
And even if it doesnt corrupt with FAT32, thats a useless config.
> I would still be doing it if it weren't for you talking me
> into going back to NTFS with your claim that it won't
> corrupt now that I have a clean install of the filesystem.
I never ever said anything remotely resembling anything like
that, you pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>> The main reason I went back to NTFS was a comment you made
>>> (actually it was one of your famous pontifications) that if I converted
>>> the FAT32 to a new NTFS filesystem it would not get corrupted.
>> I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
> Look it up.
Nothing to look up. I never ever said anything
even remotely resembling anything like that.
> You did say it, in passing.
Nope. You're lying or massively confused, as always.
>>> Unfortunately you were wrong,
>> Nope, because I never ever said anything
>> even remotely resembling anything like that.
> You have a poor memory.
You are a liar.
> But not to worry - I was willing to take the chance that
> it would be true. We actually learned something by this,
> namely a clean install of NTFS won't solve the problem.
There is no such animal. And you dont even try a
clean NTFS drive, you CONVERTED a FAT32 drive.
>>> because when I let the system go about
>>> 3 days between reboots, it got corrupted.
>> All that proves is that the fault has nothing
>> to do with the file system being used.
> You don't know if a FAT32 will corrupt.
Never ever said I did.
>>> I agree and that's why I will run ImPerfect
>>> Disk when you tell me where to get it.
>> Pathetic, really.
> It's you who is pathetic.
Pathetic, really.
>>> But first I want to run ImPerfect Disk.
>> Pathetic, really.
> LOL. I had you going for a while, didn't I?
Just another of your pathetic little puerile drug crazed fantasys.
> You are not the only one who knows how to be sarcastic.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist boneheads ?
>>> Especially since I am running a 2 GB pagefile in memory.
>> Fark. What else are you doing like that that you havent even mentioned ?
> What do you want to know?
What else are you doing like that that you havent even mentioned, stupid.
>>> How do you propose to run chkdsk without
>>> rebooting or without remounting the disk as D:?
>> You cant actually be THAT stupid.
> Win2K won't let me run chkdsk on the boot disk while
> it is running. It schedules chkdsk for boot time.
Presumably you actually ARE that stupid.
> Here's what happens when I try:
> +++
> C:\>chkdsk c: /f
> The type of the file system is NTFS.
> Cannot lock current drive.
> Chkdsk cannot run because the volume is in use by another
> process. Would you like to schedule this volume to be
> checked the next time the system restarts? (Y/N)
> +++
> So tell me how I can run chkdsk on C: when it is the active boot partition.
Leave the /f off, stupid.
kony
wrote:
>Of course if I did it that way I would first copy over the Profiles
>and install a minimum number of apps to keep productive for my most
>important projects. The other stuff I would have to put on hold.
>
>But them if I do that, why not install XP Pro and use its wizard to
>move everything from Win2K.
The wizard cannot move everything, you're still left with
misc things out of order that will have to be moved
manually.
Recall that you're starting out with a clean install. Once
that is confirmed working correctly, a necessary step, the
copying of apps and export/import registry entries is a
matter of minutes' time. You will have to set user
preferences again, so that's your call to make- if you want
to go to XP, ok, but I would go to XP because you really
wanted XP besides this issue, for it's own merits and
detractions relative to 2K.
>I suppose I can learn to live with XP if I
>use the compatibility mode. I was wanting to wait for Vista but I
>never install a new version of Windows without the first SP out and
>tested, and that could be a couple years with Vista. Therefore I
>should consider XP for the interim. My son has been running XP for
>years and he likes it, so it can't be all that bad.
He's not trying to run a several years old upgrade from NT4
that's acting odd and has 100+ apps either... it's all about
context. Do not think XP will magically make all your old
stuff run with it's wizard, it isn't going to happen, but it
will do some useful things and you may find you still need
to copy files, merge registry entries, etc.
>
>Then I can slowly install my other apps, taking the opportunity to
>upgrade them as I install each one.
If you're going to slowly install your apps, there was no
point to any of this... The main thing is, to, umm, do it,
whichever way just get past this perpetual data corruption
and put it behind you forever, ASAP.
>
>It sounds like a plan, but first I want to squeeze the last bit of
>life out of Win2K. That's why I am going to convert back to FAT32 and
>give it a chance to hang itself by running it a couple weeks.
There's no reason to think you're squeezing the last life
out of 2K, it's a fine OS and no reason to go with XP if
you're going to reinstall everything, actually with XP you
may find that you have just an extra step of running the
Wizard PLUS the other steps of files and registry. Remember
it is not magic, nobody could have envisioned a system in
the situation you have with a realistic testing of that
scenario.
Rod Speed
Wrong, XP has a number of enhancements over 2K.
Particularly for a bonehead as bad as this one.
> actually with XP you may find that you have just an extra step
> of running the Wizard PLUS the other steps of files and registry.
Nope. The worst he might have to do is to manually configure
an app or two that it hasnt managed to cover very well.
> Remember it is not magic, nobody could have envisioned a system
> in the situation you have with a realistic testing of that scenario.
Separate issue entirely to how the registry settings can be moved.
And its completely trivial to try the wizard and see if it does manage
to avoid the main problem he keeps whining about, the corruption
and the duplicate entrys for the partitions in a couple of apps.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>And you dont even try a
>clean NTFS drive, you CONVERTED a FAT32 drive.
Once again you do not know what you are talking about.
I created a new NTFS partition and copied all the files in the FAT32
partition to it.
Citizen Bob
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Remember it is not magic, nobody could have envisioned a system
>> in the situation you have with a realistic testing of that scenario.
>Separate issue entirely to how the registry settings can be moved.
Why don't you guys admit it - you don't know what is wrong here so you
are putting me thru a merry chase to look like you do.
There is nothing wrong with the removable bay.
There is something very wrong with the Registry and exporting any part
of it is possible to get the corruption problem all over again.
The only solution, as has always been the case with Microsoft
products, is to start over from the beginning - install a new Win2K
and install all the apps over again.
That's something I will be forced to do one day when Win2K becomes
obsolete. In the meantime I can live with the problem, and I am
curious to see if there is anyone who can attack the problem who knows
what they are talking about instead of all this hacking around.
kony
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's no reason to think you're squeezing the
>> last life out of 2K, it's a fine OS and no reason to
>> go with XP if you're going to reinstall everything,
>
>Wrong, XP has a number of enhancements over 2K.
Maybe they're important, or maybe not. He's got a shedload
of software installed already, so he may not need some, or
even all, the supposed enhancements.
>
>Particularly for a bonehead as bad as this one.
But, he IS using Win2k right now! If he's familiar with any
OS, it would tend to be what's presently on the system.
Plus, XP may have some app or driver issues which means even
more time hunting down newer/patched/etc code.
>
>> actually with XP you may find that you have just an extra step
>> of running the Wizard PLUS the other steps of files and registry.
>
>Nope. The worst he might have to do is to manually configure
>an app or two that it hasnt managed to cover very well.
An app or two? Hardly, recall that he has myrid things that
may even pre-date Win2k. The other thing it may do is carry
over more bloat which is part of what it'd be good to get
rid of on an installation so old and already migrated as it
were, not to mention whatever's causing the problem.
It's quite possible the XP Wizard helps expedite the
process, also possible it will not reproduce the current
problem with the system, but XP itself is a further cost, a
further learning curve for some things, time to check or
source the drivers/apps
>> Remember it is not magic, nobody could have envisioned a system
>> in the situation you have with a realistic testing of that scenario.
>
>Separate issue entirely to how the registry settings can be moved.
>
>And its completely trivial to try the wizard and see if it does manage
>to avoid the main problem he keeps whining about, the corruption
>and the duplicate entrys for the partitions in a couple of apps.
Yes he could try it, but then he could (have) tried the
clean win2k install too but hasn't. In the end buying and
using XP for this process could have negligable to no gain.
kony
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:20:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
><rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Remember it is not magic, nobody could have envisioned a system
>>> in the situation you have with a realistic testing of that scenario.
>
>>Separate issue entirely to how the registry settings can be moved.
>
>Why don't you guys admit it - you don't know what is wrong here so you
>are putting me thru a merry chase to look like you do.
Actually the last resort of reinstalling the OS is pretty
much the industry standard and accepted practice when the
solution is not known.... or it could be we know what's
wrong and are just leading you around for kicks. Either
way, you should recognize that a clean reinstall of the OS
should rectify the problem.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Remember it is not magic, nobody could have envisioned a system
>>> in the situation you have with a realistic testing of that scenario.
>> Separate issue entirely to how the registry settings can be moved.
> Why don't you guys admit it - you don't know what is wrong here
We have both said repeatedly that there are a number of
possibilitys and that the only viable option is to TRY what
we have suggested to prove where the problem actually is.
> so you are putting me thru a merry chase to look like you do.
Great way to get advice on how to work out where the problem is.
And lets not forget that you have been mindlessly thrashing around
for MORE THAN A YEAR and havent managed to fix it yourself.
> There is nothing wrong with the removable bay.
You dont know that until you still get the corruption with the drive directly connected.
And I've just won that bet too, I bet that you wouldnt actually try
what is completely trivial to try to eliminate that POSSIBILITY.
> There is something very wrong with the Registry and exporting
> any part of it is possible to get the corruption problem all over again.
Yes, but you dont know that it wont fix the problem too.
THE ONLY WAY TO WORK OUT WHAT IS CAUSING THE
CORRUPTION IS TO TRY VARIOUS POSSIBILITYS AND TO
SEE WHICH IS IN FACT THE CAUSE OF THAT CORRUPTION.
And it makes a lot more sense to try something easy to try like
eliminating any possibility that its the removable drive bay than
it is to try a completely clean install of all the apps from scratch,
only to find that its actually a hardware problem in the first place.
> The only solution, as has always been the case with
> Microsoft products, is to start over from the beginning
> - install a new Win2K and install all the apps over again.
That wont neccessarily fix the problem either if its a hardware problem.
And it isnt the case with XP anyway.
> That's something I will be forced to do one day when Win2K becomes obsolete.
No it isnt. The XP files and settings transfer wizard should
work fine and might at most need a bit of minor config of a
couple of apps out of the 100s you claim to use all the time.
Corse it makes sense to try that on a spare drive and see if
you still get the corruption, because its always possible that
that is due to a hardware problem and not the OS install at all.
> In the meantime I can live with the problem,
Gunna be hilarious if it ends up fanging
you on the arse very spectacularly indeed.
> and I am curious to see if there is anyone who can attack the problem
> who knows what they are talking about instead of all this hacking around.
There is no other way to decide if its a hardware problem or a fucked OS install.
Presumably thats the reason the chinese woman wiped her hands of your, she
decided that you are terminally bone headed and a complete waste of time.
Bet the US retailler did too, decided that you were a complete waste of time too
and gave you a full refund because you werent worth wasting any more time on.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> There's no reason to think you're squeezing the
>>> last life out of 2K, it's a fine OS and no reason to
>>> go with XP if you're going to reinstall everything,
>> Wrong, XP has a number of enhancements over 2K.
> Maybe they're important, or maybe not.
Some of them are very useful.
> He's got a shedload of software installed already, so he may
> not need some, or even all, the supposed enhancements.
Nothing 'supposed' about some of them like the system restore.
That alone would clearly have helped him in the past.
And none of his apps provide anything like that capability.
>> Particularly for a bonehead as bad as this one.
> But, he IS using Win2k right now!
Irrelevant to what makes sense in his situation now.
> If he's familiar with any OS, it would tend
> to be what's presently on the system.
Not a shred of evidence that he's actually familiar with anything OS wise.
He's so stupid that he cant even manage to work out what
chkdsk is about and how to check whether corruption of the MFT
is actually happening at other than boot time or shutdown time.
He's so stupid that he cant even try one VERY simple check,
see if the corruption is due to the removeable drive bay by
seeing if it still happens with the drive directly connected.
> Plus, XP may have some app or driver issues which means
> even more time hunting down newer/patched/etc code.
Easy enough to try a migration to a clean XP install using
the files and settings transfer wizard to see if that fixes
the problem and if there are any of those glitches.
Not a shred of rocket science required at all,
he even has a spare hard drive to try that with.
His problem is that he doesnt have anything viable between his ears.
>>> actually with XP you may find that you have just an extra step
>>> of running the Wizard PLUS the other steps of files and registry.
>> Nope. The worst he might have to do is to manually configure
>> an app or two that it hasnt managed to cover very well.
> An app or two? Hardly,
You dont know that.
> recall that he has myrid things that may even pre-date Win2k.
There isnt much that does that has
a problem with XP if it runs fine on 2K.
> The other thing it may do is carry over more bloat
> which is part of what it'd be good to get rid of on an
> installation so old and already migrated as it were,
God knows what this is about.
> not to mention whatever's causing the problem.
It wont necessarily even do that, it could be a hardware problem.
> It's quite possible the XP Wizard helps expedite the
> process, also possible it will not reproduce the current
> problem with the system, but XP itself is a further cost,
He doesnt bother with legal copys.
> a further learning curve for some things,
Nope, he can continue to do whatever he does with 2K.
> time to check or source the drivers/apps
He already said that he has kept the app zip files etc.
>>> Remember it is not magic, nobody could have envisioned a system
>>> in the situation you have with a realistic testing of that scenario.
>> Separate issue entirely to how the registry settings can be moved.
>> And its completely trivial to try the wizard and see if it does manage
>> to avoid the main problem he keeps whining about, the corruption
>> and the duplicate entrys for the partitions in a couple of apps.
> Yes he could try it, but then he could (have)
> tried the clean win2k install too but hasn't.
Because of the considerably greater effort required to go that route.
> In the end buying and using XP for this
> process could have negligable to no gain.
Oh bullshit. The system restore alone would have saved quite
a bit of his time instead of hobbling along on an obsolete OS.
And if the OS had got into one hell of a mess due to his
terminal stupiditys, it would be a hell of a lot easier now
to move to a clean XP install from the fucked XP install
using the files and settings transfer wizard now.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I created a new NTFS partition and copied
> all the files in the FAT32 partition to it.
Pity you didnt mention that till now and were
asking about a conversion from NTFS to FAT32.
Hardly any of us can read minds.
In spades when they are inside bone heads.
kony
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> There's no reason to think you're squeezing the
>>>> last life out of 2K, it's a fine OS and no reason to
>>>> go with XP if you're going to reinstall everything,
>
>>> Wrong, XP has a number of enhancements over 2K.
>
>> Maybe they're important, or maybe not.
>
>Some of them are very useful.
>
>> He's got a shedload of software installed already, so he may
>> not need some, or even all, the supposed enhancements.
>
>Nothing 'supposed' about some of them like the system restore.
>
>That alone would clearly have helped him in the past.
Do tell how system restore overrides a corrupted HDD
filesystem. The resolution for that is what he is already
doing, continually restoring a backup and losing any
data/changes/etc made in the interim.
>
>And none of his apps provide anything like that capability.
>
>>> Particularly for a bonehead as bad as this one.
>
>> But, he IS using Win2k right now!
>
>Irrelevant to what makes sense in his situation now.
Sledge hammer?
>> If he's familiar with any OS, it would tend
>> to be what's presently on the system.
>
>Not a shred of evidence that he's actually familiar with anything OS wise.
Well there's that part about running it... which is more
than can be said about XP.
>Easy enough to try a migration to a clean XP install using
>the files and settings transfer wizard to see if that fixes
>the problem and if there are any of those glitches.
Why would we need to use the files and settings transfer
wizard to see if that fixes the problem?
Clean OS install will certainly fix it, only through trying
to move this frankensteined 2K installation to XP without
control over exactly what's being added, would it tend to
allow unresolvable reoccurance of the problem.
To put it another way, IF he chooses to go with XP, IMO he
should not use that wizard until after he has first tried
mergining a few registry keys, leaving it alone for testing,
then adding the application files. The least additions and
changes at first will make it easier to see if the cause is
reproduced.
>>>> actually with XP you may find that you have just an extra step
>>>> of running the Wizard PLUS the other steps of files and registry.
>
>>> Nope. The worst he might have to do is to manually configure
>>> an app or two that it hasnt managed to cover very well.
>
>> An app or two? Hardly,
>
>You dont know that.
I know that the odds are, with over 100 apps carried over
from several years pre-2K era, there will be more than a
couple things needing attention. Problem is Bob wants a
comprehensive overview of what these things will be when we
haven't even seen his system, left alone tried to migrate
that particular combo of old and problematic software and/or
settings.
>
>> recall that he has myrid things that may even pre-date Win2k.
>
>There isnt much that does that has
>a problem with XP if it runs fine on 2K.
Yes most things that'll run on 2k will on XP too, but that
doesn't mean the XP wizard can get it all working without
software reinstallation, user config, and possibly hidden
key/validations recreation.
>It wont necessarily even do that, it could be a hardware problem.
I won't rule it out but it's quite doubtful considering the
duplicate volume entries shown in windows.
>
>> It's quite possible the XP Wizard helps expedite the
>> process, also possible it will not reproduce the current
>> problem with the system, but XP itself is a further cost,
>
>He doesnt bother with legal copys.
Even if this is true, with XP there's validation and
escalated checking for patch purposes... so we'd have to
suppose he's inclined to hack that out when he isn't even
wanting to reinstall windows at all.
>
>> a further learning curve for some things,
>
>Nope, he can continue to do whatever he does with 2K.
If he doesn't configure or make use of anything else in XP
over 2k, thus no learning, then XP's only benefit may be the
wizard. Quite an expense just to get a wizard.
Then again, he's been going on about Vista, and buying XP
right now from the right vendors might get him an upgrade
coupon for vista, so at least XP's cost is contributory
towards another goal he has, regardless of whether we feel
his aging system is a good vista candidate.
>
>> time to check or source the drivers/apps
>
>He already said that he has kept the app zip files etc.
yes, but presumably for what he has/had, NT/2K. We can't
really ignore than jumping into (probably SP2 revision of)
XP may require some updates to these. Maybe not, but
remember that Bob is trying to use a crystal ball to see
everything possible.
>> Yes he could try it, but then he could (have)
>> tried the clean win2k install too but hasn't.
>
>Because of the considerably greater effort required to go that route.
Only if you assumed a magic wizard is a cure-all, otherwise
he may have similar tasks to do PLUS the wizard with XP,
though it'll transfer user preferences instead of that
manually- though that is not so production inhibiting as not
having any vital software working.
>
>> In the end buying and using XP for this
>> process could have negligable to no gain.
>
>Oh bullshit. The system restore alone would have saved quite
>a bit of his time instead of hobbling along on an obsolete OS.
He's made backups, what would you claim a system restore
would do for him over an entire partition backup from the
same moment in time? Apparently he doesn't have any such
event to fall back on, so a system restore now is a day (ok,
Years...) late, and preempted by the full partition backups
he'll most certainly want to make if he has any hope of
painlessly salvaging what's left on the drive after this
continual corruptive cycle.
>
>And if the OS had got into one hell of a mess due to his
>terminal stupiditys, it would be a hell of a lot easier now
>to move to a clean XP install from the fucked XP install
>using the files and settings transfer wizard now.
... except for the things that don't (then) work, requiring
the other steps anyway. If he wants XP, ok, but at this
point the problem is not which OS he chooses, it's that he
hasn't started a replacement installation of either.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> There's no reason to think you're squeezing the
>>>>> last life out of 2K, it's a fine OS and no reason to
>>>>> go with XP if you're going to reinstall everything,
>>>> Wrong, XP has a number of enhancements over 2K.
>>> Maybe they're important, or maybe not.
>> Some of them are very useful.
>>> He's got a shedload of software installed already, so he may
>>> not need some, or even all, the supposed enhancements.
>> Nothing 'supposed' about some of them like the system restore.
>> That alone would clearly have helped him in the past.
> Do tell how system restore overrides a corrupted HDD filesystem.
Never said it would. It may well have helped with the
partitions ending up with duplicated entrys in some apps tho.
> The resolution for that is what he is already doing,
> continually restoring a backup and losing any
> data/changes/etc made in the interim.
Duh.
>> And none of his apps provide anything like that capability.
>>>> Particularly for a bonehead as bad as this one.
>>> But, he IS using Win2k right now!
>> Irrelevant to what makes sense in his situation now.
> Sledge hammer?
Nope, working out what is corrupting the MFT, hardware or
fucked OS install, since it cant be one of the apps he runs now.
>>> If he's familiar with any OS, it would tend
>>> to be what's presently on the system.
>> Not a shred of evidence that he's actually familiar with anything OS wise.
> Well there's that part about running it...
> which is more than can be said about XP.
Wrong again. He can run XP just like he runs 2K now if he wants to.
>> Easy enough to try a migration to a clean XP install using
>> the files and settings transfer wizard to see if that fixes
>> the problem and if there are any of those glitches.
> Why would we need to use the files and settings
> transfer wizard to see if that fixes the problem?
Because that is the easiest way to do a clean OS install, stupid.
> Clean OS install will certainly fix it,
You dont know that. It could be a hardware problem.
> only through trying to move this frankensteined
> 2K installation to XP without control over exactly
> what's being added, would it tend to allow
> unresolvable reoccurance of the problem.
Mindless silly stuff when its a clean install of XP, not an upgrade.
Its actually significantly easier to try a clean OS install with XP
instead of 2K, just because the wizard isnt available with 2K.
And if he still gets the MFT corruption after using the wizard, he
can try another clean install of XP, dont migrate any of the apps
at all and see if he still gets the corruption of the MFT. If he
doesnt he can cut to the chase and manually install those apps then.
Corse he's so bone headed that he wont do that, because
he so bone headed that he would prefer to waste MUCH
more time over the next year or so fixing the corrupted MFT
manually every week than to manually install the apps again.
> To put it another way, IF he chooses to go with XP,
> IMO he should not use that wizard until after he has
> first tried mergining a few registry keys, leaving it
> alone for testing, then adding the application files.
It would be better to not bother with any registry keys
at all, just see whether a clean install of XP corrupts
the MFT when running ImPerfect Disk. That would be
one way of completely eliminating any possibility of a
hardware problem being the cause of the corrupted MFT.
Corse he's so bone headed that he wont even try that VERY easy test either.
> The least additions and changes at first will
> make it easier to see if the cause is reproduced.
Yes, but it makes more sense to try the virgin XP install
first when its so easy to use ImPerfect Disk to see if it
corrupts the MFT since it does with the 2K install.
>>>>> actually with XP you may find that you have just an extra step
>>>>> of running the Wizard PLUS the other steps of files and registry.
>>>> Nope. The worst he might have to do is to manually configure
>>>> an app or two that it hasnt managed to cover very well.
>>> An app or two? Hardly,
>> You dont know that.
> I know that the odds are, with over 100 apps
> carried over from several years pre-2K era, there
> will be more than a couple things needing attention.
You dont even know how many of the apps are actually that old.
> Problem is Bob wants a comprehensive overview of what
> these things will be when we haven't even seen his system,
> left alone tried to migrate that particular combo of old and
> problematic software and/or settings.
The real problem is that he's so bone headed that he
is actually stupid enough to prefer to manually repair
the MFT corruption weekly, over more than a year,
instead of even trying the most basic test like checking
if a clean virgin XP install sees any MFT corruption.
Presumably thats what saw him getting the
bums rush from his last paid employment.
>>> recall that he has myrid things that may even pre-date Win2k.
>> There isnt much that does that has
>> a problem with XP if it runs fine on 2K.
> Yes most things that'll run on 2k will on XP too, but that
> doesn't mean the XP wizard can get it all working without
> software reinstallation, user config, and possibly hidden
> key/validations recreation.
Never said it is guaranteed to. In fact I repeatedly said that
the worst that might happen is that a few apps might have
to be dont manually. Its very unlikely to be more than a few tho.
>> It wont necessarily even do that, it could be a hardware problem.
> I won't rule it out but it's quite doubtful considering
> the duplicate volume entries shown in windows.
Those dont show in Win, only in a couple of his apps.
>>> It's quite possible the XP Wizard helps expedite the
>>> process, also possible it will not reproduce the current
>>> problem with the system, but XP itself is a further cost,
>> He doesnt bother with legal copys.
> Even if this is true, with XP there's validation
> and escalated checking for patch purposes...
Not if you have a clue and use a corporate XP.
> so we'd have to suppose he's inclined to hack that out
> when he isn't even wanting to reinstall windows at all.
You dont need to if you have enough of a clue to use a corporate XP.
Corse its a big ask to assume he actually has a clue about
anything at all or have enough viable between his ears to
be able to even accept that recommended approach either.
>>> a further learning curve for some things,
>> Nope, he can continue to do whatever he does with 2K.
> If he doesn't configure or make use of anything else in XP over
> 2k, thus no learning, then XP's only benefit may be the wizard.
Wrong, there are quite a few other conveniences too. Many
of them just see XP making it harder for stupids to do things
dangerously and others just making life easier like with the
completely automatic detection and appropriate app launching
when you plug in stuff as basic as a camera etc even if he's
such a dinosaur that he would touch an ipod if you paid him etc.
> Quite an expense just to get a wizard.
No expense whatever if you choose not to pay for it.
> Then again, he's been going on about Vista, and buying XP right now
> from the right vendors might get him an upgrade coupon for vista,
He doesnt appear to buy any software that its possible to download.
> so at least XP's cost is contributory towards another goal he has,
> regardless of whether we feel his aging system is a good vista candidate.
I bet vista is just more talk and he wont ever buy it.
>>> time to check or source the drivers/apps
>> He already said that he has kept the app zip files etc.
> yes, but presumably for what he has/had, NT/2K.
> We can't really ignore than jumping into (probably SP2
> revision of) XP may require some updates to these.
No big deal if that only involves a couple/few.
> Maybe not, but remember that Bob is trying
> to use a crystal ball to see everything possible.
That's just his excuse to justify actually doing anything
except continuing to waste heaps of time manually
repairing the MFT corruption weekly, and the cloning
that has to be done at a high rate because that happens.
He's actually too stupid to use TI's incremental backups.
>>> Yes he could try it, but then he could (have)
>>> tried the clean win2k install too but hasn't.
>> Because of the considerably greater effort required to go that route.
> Only if you assumed a magic wizard is a cure-all,
Doesnt have to be a cure all, ALL it needs to do is substantially
reduce the number of apps that need to be manually configured.
> otherwise he may have similar tasks to do PLUS the wizard with XP,
Mindlessly silly.
> though it'll transfer user preferences instead of that manually-
Which alone is a substantial saving of effort.
> though that is not so production inhibiting
> as not having any vital software working.
Its completely trivial to try the XP wizard and see if
that very unlikely outcome happens and reconsider the
migration to XP if that does fix the MFT corruption problem.
>>> In the end buying and using XP for this
>>> process could have negligable to no gain.
>> Oh bullshit. The system restore alone would have saved quite
>> a bit of his time instead of hobbling along on an obsolete OS.
> He's made backups,
And doing that by cloning at the high rate that needs to be done
because of the high rate of MFT corruption is alone one hell of a
lot more effort than even manually doing a clean install of 2K.
> what would you claim a system restore would do for him
> over an entire partition backup from the same moment in time?
If the clean install of XP doesnt see any MFT corruption,
it would allow him to do the backups at a much lower rate
and while he is too stupid to actually use TI incremental
backups instead for the effortlessness of those, it would
allow him to do a system restore when something else
goes pear shaped in the future, as its absolutely guaranteed
to do given the terminal stupidity of so much of what he does.
System restores are MUCH faster than restoring by cloning.
> Apparently he doesn't have any such event to fall back
> on, so a system restore now is a day (ok, Years...) late,
Yes, but he's learnt his lesson from that one. He
didnt have the clone backups for that one either.
> and preempted by the full partition backups he'll most certainly
> want to make if he has any hope of painlessly salvaging what's
> left on the drive after this continual corruptive cycle.
Yes, but if the XP install does eliminate the MFT corruption,
he may well stop cloning at such a high rate, and then he
will benefit from being able to do a system restore when he
fucks up in the future, and that is absolutely guaranteed to
happen given the terminal stupidity of so much of what he does.
>> And if the OS had got into one hell of a mess due to his
>> terminal stupiditys, it would be a hell of a lot easier now
>> to move to a clean XP install from the fucked XP install
>> using the files and settings transfer wizard now.
> ... except for the things that don't (then)
> work, requiring the other steps anyway.
It always works fine when using it from one XP install to another.
> If he wants XP, ok, but at this point the problem
> is not which OS he chooses, it's that he hasn't
> started a replacement installation of either.
Yes, but doing a clean install with XP is sure to require much
less effort because of the wizard, so its more likely that it will
eventually get thru his thick skull that its worth trying, if only
to avoid the effort of manually repairing the MFT corruption
weekly, with the the real risk that it might end up fanging
him on the arse very comprehensively indeed one day.
He isnt completely stupid, he did manage to grasp the need for backups.
He's got one hell of a capacity for painting himself into a corner and
did so with that stupid raid approach and kept adamently insisting
that it was working fine until even he managed to realise that it wasnt.
Its going to be interesting to see if he actually is so stupid as to
continue to manually repair the MFT corruption weekly for another
year or two. Corse he wont have the balls to admit that now.