Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Formatting on drive wiped out when testing another drive

Reply
Thread Tools

Formatting on drive wiped out when testing another drive

 
 
Rod Speed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
Ralph Wade Phillips <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> Eric Gisin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote


>> You are a ****ing moron. There are no "bios drive letters".


> *shrug* So make it "Drive letters assigned
> in the BIOS enumeration order".


There is no "Drive letters assigned in the BIOS enumeration
order", because the bios works at the physical drive level,
and drive letters have to be allocated by partition.

And even with the simple case of one partition per physical
drive, XP still doesnt allocate letters in the BIOS enumeration
order, otherwise you wouldnt get the odd result you sometimes
see where XP decides to give the boot partition other than the
C letter with a later install of XP.

> And *ahem* I've seen several BIOSes that do use drive letters
> to refer to drives. Albeit somewhat enhanced BIOSes, that
> included such nicities as "Flash recovery" in ROM.


Sure, but thats a separate issue to the letter XP gives it.


>> "Ralph Wade Phillips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

> newszBeg.33373$4H.9574@dukeread03...
>>>>
>>>> And not just disk management either, it also happens
>>>> whenever the boot phase finds a new physical drive
>>>> or partition thats been created outside XP too.
>>>
>>> Err - no, at least not in my experience.
>>>
>>> It uses the BIOS for BIOS-enumerated drives, then remaps as
>>> the volume boot blocks specify, as long as it won't overwrite a
>>> BIOS drive letter. It THEN checks the registry for other drives ...
>>>
>>> And I've been in several machines without anything but
>>> floppies and the boot partition specified in
>>> HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Mounted Devices ...



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rod Speed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> "Ralph Wade Phillips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> Which *ahem* is what I said earlier.
>>>
>>> And you might want to note - if you HAD been right about it
>>> being just like Win9X, then you wouldn't have had to move the drive
>>> letters around, eh?


> I was right


Nope, not once. You've mangled the story even more comprehensively now.

> and stand by it.


You can stand wherever you like, changes absolutely nothing at all.

> I guess experence beats out reading a web page.


Guess again. It cant have happened anything like you claimed.

And you're just plain wrong with your claim that the NT/2K/XP family
allocates the drive letters the same way that the DOS/9x/ME family
does, and its completely trivial to prove that too. Dont need a web page.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Folkert Rienstra
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
"Ralph Wade Phillips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message newslGeg.33427$4H.16479@dukeread03
> Howdy!
> "Eric Gisin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > You are a ****ing moron.


Makes one hate to think of what are you.

> There are no "bios drive letters".


Well, at least that part is true.

>
> *shrug* So make it "Drive letters assigned in the BIOS enumeration order".


BIOS does not concern itself with partitions so although there is a
relationship there is more to it than just "BIOS enumeration order".

>
> And *ahem* I've seen several BIOSes that do use drive letters to
> refer to drives.


But that is the only relationship. They use that instead of BIOS device
numbers. Has nothing to do with DOS or Windows logical drive letters
other than that there is this rather loose relationship.


> Albeit somewhat enhanced BIOSes, that included such nicities as
> "Flash recovery" in ROM.
>
> RwP
>
> >
> > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message newszBeg.33373$4H.9574@dukeread03...
> > > >
> > > > And not just disk management either, it also happens
> > > > whenever the boot phase finds a new physical drive
> > > > or partition thats been created outside XP too.
> > >
> > > Err - no, at least not in my experience.
> > >
> > > It uses the BIOS for BIOS-enumerated drives, then remaps as the
> > > volume boot blocks specify, as long as it won't overwrite a BIOS drive
> > > letter. It THEN checks the registry for other drives ...
> > >
> > > And I've been in several machines without anything but floppies and
> > > the boot partition specified in HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Mounted
> > > Devices ...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Folkert Rienstra
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
"Eric Gisin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)

> You and Ralph together are more stupid than Arnie.


Thanks Eric for that superfluous proof that you lost most if not all of
your marbles.

> Old Award BIOS did letter the drives, but changed it to HDD#.
> However, it had nothing to do with DOS, which really assigns letters.
>
> "Ralph Wade Phillips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message newslGeg.33427$4H.16479@dukeread03...
> > Howdy!
> >
> > "Eric Gisin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > You are a ****ing moron. There are no "bios drive letters".

> >
> > *shrug* So make it "Drive letters assigned in the BIOS enumeration order".
> >
> > And *ahem* I've seen several BIOSes that do use drive letters to
> > refer to drives. Albeit somewhat enhanced BIOSes, that included such
> > nicities as "Flash recovery" in ROM.
> >
> > RwP

 
Reply With Quote
 
Folkert Rienstra
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
"Rod Speed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)
> Folkert Rienstra <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> > David Maynard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> > > Rod Speed wrote
> > > > David Maynard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> > > > > Folkert Rienstra wrote
> > > > > > David Maynard (E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> > > > > > > (E-Mail Removed) wrote
> > > > > > > > Rod Speed <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> > > > > > > > > > (E-Mail Removed) wrote
> > > > > > > > > > > (E-Mail Removed) wrote

>
> > > > > Win9x has the 'reverse' problem. It will fail to boot (properly)
> > > > > if the system drive is physically moved to a different position
> > > > > because then it's no longer C:

>
> > > > That varys too.

>
> > Nope, it's just plain wrong.

>
> We'll see...


Yup, we will indeed.

>
> > Bootdrive is always C: with Win9x.

>
> I was commenting on the 'it will fail to boot (properly),


Yes, and your comment that "it varys" was wrong in the way
that you suggested it. It will work fine in far more situations
than you suggested. (However, Win9x can get confused when
it finds itself in the same directory as on another drive and
run off that other drive, once booted).

> not on the drive letter claim.


Doesn't matter.

>
> It'll boot fine when there is just one active primary dos parti-
> tion and the drive that it is on is physically moved to a different
> position.


And not only in that case.
It will be fine too with 2 drives with only primaries and even with
2 drives with secondaries as long as references in registry are all
to C: or not important to Windows to be able to boot up properly.

> Yes, it will certainly have the C letter.
>
> > And it only 'varys' if both have primary partitions
> > *and* secondaries and Windows is on the secondary.


> Even that doesnt necessarily stop it booting properly,


Oh, yes it does.

> all that does is affect the letters particular partions get.


Exactly.
And when the partition that Windows9x is on happens to
be that "particular partion", than the reference to it's
driveletter in MSDOS.SYS is wrong and the boot fails.

>
> > > > If there is only one drive, you can certainly
> > > > move it to the second controller and boot off that fine.

>
> > > Irrelevant as the stated scenario was two drives.

>
> > Wrong. Doesn't matter with 'only' primaries.
> > The booted drive is C:, the other is D: no matter where they are connected.


> Correct,


Right, so your claim that it varys was plain wrong in the case as suggested.

> for once.


Far more than you like to admit.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rod Speed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
Folkert Rienstra <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> Rod Speed <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>> Folkert Rienstra <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>> David Maynard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> David Maynard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>>>>> Folkert Rienstra wrote
>>>>>>> David Maynard (E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>>>>>>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote


>>>>>> Win9x has the 'reverse' problem. It will fail to boot (properly)
>>>>>> if the system drive is physically moved to a different position
>>>>>> because then it's no longer C:


>>>>> That varys too.


>>> Nope, it's just plain wrong.


>> We'll see...


> Yup, we will indeed.


Yep, that you never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> Bootdrive is always C: with Win9x.


>> I was commenting on the 'it will fail to boot (properly),


> Yes, and your comment that "it varys" was
> wrong in the way that you suggested it.


Nope.

> It will work fine in far more situations than you suggested.


I said nothing about the situations, fool.

> (However, Win9x can get confused when it finds
> itself in the same directory as on another drive
> and run off that other drive, once booted).


Irrelevant to what was being discussed
there, FAIL TO BOOT PROPERLY.

>> not on the drive letter claim.


> Doesn't matter.


Corse it does with what I actually said varys.

>> It'll boot fine when there is just one active primary
>> dos partition and the drive that it is on is physically
>> moved to a different position.


> And not only in that case.


Never said it was. That was just ONE
EXAMPLE where it will boot properly.

> It will be fine too with 2 drives with only primaries and even with
> 2 drives with secondaries as long as references in registry are all
> to C: or not important to Windows to be able to boot up properly.


Duh.

>> Yes, it will certainly have the C letter.


>>> And it only 'varys' if both have primary partitions
>>> *and* secondaries and Windows is on the secondary.


>> Even that doesnt necessarily stop it booting properly,


> Oh, yes it does.


Oh no it doesnt.

>> all that does is affect the letters particular partions get.


> Exactly.
> And when the partition that Windows9x is on happens
> to be that "particular partion", than the reference to it's
> driveletter in MSDOS.SYS is wrong and the boot fails.


I included the word NECESSARILY for a reason, ****wit.

>>>>> If there is only one drive, you can certainly move
>>>>> it to the second controller and boot off that fine.


>>>> Irrelevant as the stated scenario was two drives.


>>> Wrong. Doesn't matter with 'only' primaries.
>>> The booted drive is C:, the other is D: no
>>> matter where they are connected.


>> Correct,


> Right, so your claim that it varys was
> plain wrong in the case as suggested.


A single case just supports the VARYS, ****wit.

>> for once.


> Far more than you like to admit.


Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant pathetic
excuse for a bullshit artist drug crazed fantasyland.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
"Rod Speed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

|>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
|>> "Ralph Wade Phillips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|>>
|>>>> Which *ahem* is what I said earlier.
|>>>>
|>>>> And you might want to note - if you HAD been right about it
|>>>> being just like Win9X, then you wouldn't have had to move the drive
|>>>> letters around, eh?
|>
|>> I was right
|>
|>Nope, not once. You've mangled the story even more comprehensively now.

Yes it got confusing, the first post cover'd many years and this
recent XP story is within the last 6 months. -

|>> and stand by it.
|>
|>You can stand wherever you like, changes absolutely nothing at all.
|>
|>> I guess experence beats out reading a web page.
|>
|>Guess again. It cant have happened anything like you claimed.
|>
|>And you're just plain wrong with your claim that the NT/2K/XP family
|>allocates the drive letters the same way that the DOS/9x/ME family
|>does, and its completely trivial to prove that too. Dont need a web page.
|>

So be it,

--
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
hhttp://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm
 
Reply With Quote
 
JAD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006

"Ralph Wade Phillips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsCBeg.33375$4H.25171@dukeread03...
> Howdy!
>
> "JAD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Yiseg.429$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:S7leg.33290$4H.22437@dukeread03...
> > > Howdy!
> > >
> > > "Rod Speed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > (E-Mail Removed) wrote
> > >
> > > > > Whatever, I've run into this with both NT and W2K,
> > > >
> > > > No you havent. You're just attempting to bullshit
> > > > your way out of your predicament now.
> > >
> > > With NT 4, most likely - it didn't just default to writing the
> > > persistent drive letter to the partition boot blocks unless you

> > reallocated
> > > the drive letter.
> > >
> > > 2K - Might have had the NT4 handling.
> > >
> > > But he OBIOUSLY hasn't had much experience with XP - which

> writes
> > > that damn persistent drive letter out ANYTIME Disk Manglement ****s

over
> > ...
> > > err, touches a logical partition.
> > >
> > > RwP
> > >
> > >

> >
> > question If this is true AND there is no way that this drive letter
> > 'swapping' CAN happen....why is it that the OP did exactly what I and

Mike
> T
> > had suggested?

>
> You didn't read all the messages, did you?


I did now and I see what your pullin....sorry i fell into it....there are
many situations in which drive letter assignmeants get disturbed in XP or
DOS. Boot partitions for one.


> IF Disk Manager hasn't touched the drive, then it will mount by

the
> assigned drive letters FIRST then the BIOS positions.
>
> IF, however, Disk Manager was used on the drive, and a drive

letter
> assigned to it ... it'll keep it.
>
> That's how it happened.
>
> Two cases. But Pennywise keeps claiming that the NT class OSen
> don't do persistent drive letters ... and ayep, they do.
>
> RwP
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Folkert Rienstra
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
"Ralph Wade Phillips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:wkGeg.33425$4H.19174@dukeread03
> Howdy!
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > > IF, however, Disk Manager was used on the drive, and a drive letter
> > > > assigned to it ... it'll keep it.
> > > >
> > > > That's how it happened.
> > > >
> > > > Two cases. But Pennywise keeps claiming that the NT class OSen
> > > > don't do persistent drive letters ... and ayep, they do.

> >
> > Ok here's the deal - I bought a Gateway computer - it was cheaper than
> > building one.
> >
> > They have the hard drive set where the first partition of the hard
> > drive is D: and is the restore partition; and came installed with XP
> > home. The first thing I did was to change from NTFS to FAT32, with no
> > loss of data (the entire drive).
> >
> > Then I installed XP Pro on the E: partition, when I boot'd up in that
> > OS all the drive letters were screw'd up - I went as far as naming the
> > H: drive "Last_Drive" to help me out (it was F: I think). I was lucky
> > E: stay'd E: - and of course I had to change most of the drive letters
> > around to make it easier for me whichever OS I was in.
> >
> > It would seem this function of drive letters being written in stone is
> > a function of NFTS and not XP.

>
> Err - Pennywise? You ever see a 9X OS running with NTFS partitions?
>
> You've got it backwards. AND -


> XP will happily put the drive letter in the boot blocks for a FAT32 partition also,
> when it a) formats it or b) when you reassign the drive letters in Disk Management.


Oh? Never heard of that before. Any reference to that?
AFAIK only LDM records driveletter info outside of Windows registry and it's not
in the partition bootblocks.

>
> HOWEVER - If that partition is formatted in a 9X OS, then UNTIL you
> touch it with Disk Manager, it stays in the "Oh, look - here's an open drive
> letter. Let's stuff it in there!" mode.


> Which *ahem* is what I said earlier.


You did? Must have missed that too.

>
> And you might want to note - if you HAD been right about it being
> just like Win9X, then you wouldn't have had to move the drive letters
> around, eh?
>
> RwP
>
> >
> > Why FAT32 and not NTFS - in a pinch I want to be able to boot up with
> > a Win98 disk and fix a problem if it ever occurs.
> >
> > --
> > http://www.crazyhamzters.com/flash/cunningstunt.html

 
Reply With Quote
 
Folkert Rienstra
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
"Ralph Wade Phillips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:h6leg.33289$4H.26449@dukeread03
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> >
> > HD0: if you have CDEF and add HD1 with active partition you will then
> > have CEF - HD1's first partition will take over D: and the rest of the
> > partitions follow F (GH..)
> >

>
> You've not had much real life experience with the NT class OSes,
> especially XP.
>
> Because, as anyone who works with it knows, It Does Not Work Like That.
>
> Well, it can - if a) all the logical drives were formatted first with FAT32,
> and b) nobody's EVERY run Disk Management to handle anything.


Erm, so why would mountmanager mount them DOS/Win9x style -driveletter wise-
if *not* formatted through WinXP and mount them differently when created and
formatted through WinXP? And what's the point of having a drive signature on
the drive in combination with registry entries detailing the partition drive letters
if the drive letters are already stored in the partition bootblocks as well.

>
> But if EITHER is wrong (i.e., the partitioning and formatting was done by XP,
> OR Disk Manager was ever run to remap, say, an optical drive),


> then it gets a persistent drive letter written in the PARTITION'S BOOT BLOCK.


The information I *did* find didn't say that. It didn't make any mention of that. (On
the other hand, neither did it for how exactly it stores the info in the registry either).
Presumably partition drive letters are stored/recognized in combination with a drive
signature stored in the MBR (sector 0).

>
> As is WELL documented by Microsoft and others.


Maybe so but then why can't I google that up if it is so well documented.

>
> Keep this up, and you'll look like ever more and anon someone who
> doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.


It would appear that you have the same problem, gaging some of the reactions.

>
> Otherwise, please explain why so many XP machines get first logical
> partition C, first optical D, and the added HD's primary partition as E ...
>
> Or why removing the USB card readers doesn't automagically make an
> E: or F: boot partition C: ...


According to the information I *could* find, due to registration in the
Windows registry and in combination with a signature in the MBR.

>
> RwP
>
> RwP

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wiped out config - how to reconfigure? Skippyboy Cisco 5 05-15-2007 01:52 PM
Slingshot Website down or wiped out by Telecom's lawyers perhaps? E. Scrooge NZ Computing 16 05-19-2006 09:42 PM
Thunderbird Mail Wiped Out Promajority Firefox 11 01-31-2005 04:57 AM
BIOS wiped out - is it a virus? Simon@d.j Computer Security 8 07-21-2004 08:11 PM
Keep getting my server wiped out. corrco@telus.net Computer Security 6 01-27-2004 04:45 PM



Advertisments