Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > Cloning so a SATA drive, boting form a SATA drive?

Reply
Thread Tools

Cloning so a SATA drive, boting form a SATA drive?

 
 
R. Giggs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2012

"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:k7cpj3$ui0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> R. Giggs. wrote:
>
>> Hmmmm... quite a lot of info to take in there, I am not at all sure what
>> I am supposed
>> to be doing and why.
>>
>> I am not sure what I shououdl be doing here, I am trying to think.
>>
>> 1) I have some sort of windows XP disk
>> 2) I have a couple of 'recovery' CD's knocking about.
>>
>> I am unsure if those disks will still work in the CD drive, it's a bit
>> hit and miss.
>> I have just bought some new DVD's and none of them work, however I do
>> have
>> some old DVD's which do work, ie
>>
>> So I am not too sure what the best plan is now.
>>
>> I guess I can try with just the sata drive in and boot on the recovery
>> CD/DVD
>> and see if it can do anything?
>>
>> Anyhow I think I will try rebooting with just the sata and a recovery CD
>> and see
>> what I get, at least I will find if that works or not, and I can see what
>> I can do or see from there.

>
> OK, here's the deal.
>
> Step 1: Copy old disk to new disk.
> Operation is not a success, unless new disk now boots by itself,
> without the old disk present.
>
> Step 2: If you know that's going to happen (you've already demonstrated a
> lack of boot, with the clone by itself), you need a safe
> environment
> that won't upset the clone. Booting with old and new disks
> connected,
> and selecting the new disk, doesn't count as a success. Booting
> with
> old and new connected, and using old to boot, is roughly back to
> step one. But personally, I want step 1 to be "clean", and for the
> thing to boot with the other disk absent.
>
> Step 3: The WinXP Recovery Console, is a boot system you can use, while
> only
> the clone is connected. You have your new drive connected, as well
> as
> an optical drive you can use for the WinXP disc. All the recent
> Windows OSes have a flavor of this. And to some extent, you can
> even
> use the other discs to do stuff. I can work on WinXP from a
> Windows 7
> recovery console from the Windows 7 DVD. But there are a few,
> select
> commands, that may be missing that way.



Well it's seems my recovery DVD does not work properly, if I could burn
DVD's
I could create anther one but unfortunately I have no blank DVD's the drive
will read or write to.
I will have to buy another brand of DVD's and see it the drive wil read
them.
I really do not like optical drives they have so many problems not
recognising disks,
I mean I have just bought a pack of 25 and it does not read any of them!!!
ALthough I did burn (linux image) to one of them by ignoring the fact it it
could not read it.
I can see it has been burned to by the marks on the disc.
I recalled the burning software also verified the drive yet the operating
system
does not recognise anything in the drive. ????
Maybe it is usuing a different driver, but that is just typical of the
problem you get with
optical drives.


>
> So the reason I'm suggesting that method, is booting the old disk and
> working
> from there, we don't really know whether the clone has been affected by
> anything
> you're doing or not. Whereas, running the recovery console, that's not
> going to screw the clone up.
>
> And my long procedure, that's example of forensic tests or repair
> procedures
> a person could try, in an effort to try to figure out why the cloning
> operation is failing. You don't have to do any of that, if you know
> there is something wrong with your recipe. If you know why it's broken,
> then go find another cloning method.
>
> When I've used Partition Magic in the past, to copy an OS from one
> disk to another, it changed the partition slot in the MBR, and that
> screwed up the boot.ini. So that's an example of something I'd
> now be looking for, based on discovering the bug in the past. If
> the tool you used, has a "reputation", or reviews or a forum
> where you can learn stuff about it, it may already be documented
> somewhere as to why it might not work.
>
> Paul



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
R. Giggs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2012

"R. Giggs." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:SInms.331793$(E-Mail Removed)4...
>
> "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:k7cpj3$ui0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> R. Giggs. wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmmm... quite a lot of info to take in there, I am not at all sure what
>>> I am supposed
>>> to be doing and why.
>>>
>>> I am not sure what I shououdl be doing here, I am trying to think.
>>>
>>> 1) I have some sort of windows XP disk
>>> 2) I have a couple of 'recovery' CD's knocking about.
>>>
>>> I am unsure if those disks will still work in the CD drive, it's a bit
>>> hit and miss.
>>> I have just bought some new DVD's and none of them work, however I do
>>> have
>>> some old DVD's which do work, ie
>>>
>>> So I am not too sure what the best plan is now.
>>>
>>> I guess I can try with just the sata drive in and boot on the recovery
>>> CD/DVD
>>> and see if it can do anything?
>>>
>>> Anyhow I think I will try rebooting with just the sata and a recovery CD
>>> and see
>>> what I get, at least I will find if that works or not, and I can see
>>> what I can do or see from there.

>>
>> OK, here's the deal.
>>
>> Step 1: Copy old disk to new disk.
>> Operation is not a success, unless new disk now boots by itself,
>> without the old disk present.
>>
>> Step 2: If you know that's going to happen (you've already demonstrated a
>> lack of boot, with the clone by itself), you need a safe
>> environment
>> that won't upset the clone. Booting with old and new disks
>> connected,
>> and selecting the new disk, doesn't count as a success. Booting
>> with
>> old and new connected, and using old to boot, is roughly back to
>> step one. But personally, I want step 1 to be "clean", and for
>> the
>> thing to boot with the other disk absent.
>>
>> Step 3: The WinXP Recovery Console, is a boot system you can use, while
>> only
>> the clone is connected. You have your new drive connected, as
>> well as
>> an optical drive you can use for the WinXP disc. All the recent
>> Windows OSes have a flavor of this. And to some extent, you can
>> even
>> use the other discs to do stuff. I can work on WinXP from a
>> Windows 7
>> recovery console from the Windows 7 DVD. But there are a few,
>> select
>> commands, that may be missing that way.

>
>
> Well it's seems my recovery DVD does not work properly, if I could burn
> DVD's
> I could create anther one but unfortunately I have no blank DVD's the
> drive
> will read or write to.
> I will have to buy another brand of DVD's and see it the drive wil read
> them.
> I really do not like optical drives they have so many problems not
> recognising disks,
> I mean I have just bought a pack of 25 and it does not read any of them!!!
> ALthough I did burn (linux image) to one of them by ignoring the fact it
> it could not read it.
> I can see it has been burned to by the marks on the disc.
> I recalled the burning software also verified the drive yet the operating
> system
> does not recognise anything in the drive. ????
> Maybe it is usuing a different driver, but that is just typical of the
> problem you get with
> optical drives.
>
>
>>
>> So the reason I'm suggesting that method, is booting the old disk and
>> working
>> from there, we don't really know whether the clone has been affected by
>> anything
>> you're doing or not. Whereas, running the recovery console, that's not
>> going to screw the clone up.
>>
>> And my long procedure, that's example of forensic tests or repair
>> procedures
>> a person could try, in an effort to try to figure out why the cloning
>> operation is failing. You don't have to do any of that, if you know
>> there is something wrong with your recipe. If you know why it's broken,
>> then go find another cloning method.
>>
>> When I've used Partition Magic in the past, to copy an OS from one
>> disk to another, it changed the partition slot in the MBR, and that
>> screwed up the boot.ini. So that's an example of something I'd
>> now be looking for, based on discovering the bug in the past. If
>> the tool you used, has a "reputation", or reviews or a forum
>> where you can learn stuff about it, it may already be documented
>> somewhere as to why it might not work.
>>
>> Paul

>
>



And just to prove my earlier point, "that is just typical of the
problem you get with optical drives.", I just put the DVD in I had burned
earlier and now it reads it despite sayingit was blank earlier!!!

So maybe I will be able to use the new dvds after all?

Well I tried a couple again and it does not recognise them, but I but the
one I burned in again and it still recognises it, so may burning the other
apparently
dead DVD wil work, I will have to try and ceate a recovery DVD and see.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
VanguardLH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2012
"Paul" wrote:

> In the BIOS, it's important that the SATA and IDE drive settings,
> are selected according to the drivers already loaded in Windows.
> When you cloned the drive, there should have been a driver at
> that time, to access the SATA drive. So both an IDE and SATA driver
> must have been there. The only way to get around such a situation,
> is if you cloned with an OS other than the one that is being
> copied to both disks.


If Giggs had not first installed the SATA driver into his working OS
running on the IDE drive and then cloned it to the SATA drive, could he
boot using *just* the SATA drive and use the Windows install disc to do
a Repair install to get the F6 prompt to insert a floppy to install the
SATA driver?

I also have to wonder about the boot.ini file. The entries for an IDE
hard disk are different than for a SATA hard disk. The SATA hard disk
looks like a SCSI device so its device and partition definition for an
entry in the boot.ini would be different.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/102873

In the boot.ini file on the system partition, the OP's old IDE drive
would be defined using the "multi" definition to locate the physical
disk and partition of where was the Windows boot partition. For SATA
drives, the "scsi" definition is used. What's confusing is that I've
read some users of SATA still have the multi() definition to find that
device. Apparently it appears dependent on how the mobo implemented
SATA. If it is a separate controller chip or card, it's treated as a
SCSI-like device. If the mobo's chipset incorporates SATA support then
it might be treated in the BIOS similarly to how it treats an IDE device
with the result that multi() gets used for SATA. Giggs never mention
WHAT brand and model of mobo he has; otherwise, we could go look at its
specs, pics, and manual to see how SATA was implement there and what
BIOS settings apply to it.

Note to Griggs: Microsoft names the partitions in backwards order to
what users think is intuitive. The "system" partition is where are the
files to find the boot sector and loader while the "boot" partition is
where is the rest of the OS. You boot using the system partition which
then loads the rest of the OS from the boot partition. Yeah, go figure.
In most setups, the system and boot partitions are the same (users
typically install Windows into one partition) but they can be different.
The boot.ini is in Windows' system partition.

From that same MS article, the ntbootdd.sys driver needs to be used when
the scsi() notation is used in boot.ini. During installation, and if
scsi() is used then the installer includes the ntbootdd.sys driver. On
my IDE-based install, that file is not in my Windows system/boot
partition. It appears that file shows up if you *install* onto a SCSI
device (whether actual SCSI or SATA which gets treated as SCSI). I'm
not sure how you are going to get the ntbootdd.sys driver into an
instance of Windows installed on and running from an IDE hard disk.
Maybe you have to specify the SATA disk as the boot device but use the
Windows install disc to perform a Repair install (aka in-place upgrade)
so it sees the device is SCSI-like and includes the ntbootdd.sys driver.

Hmm, does the Repair install (by booting using the Windows XP install CD
and selecting Repair [twice, I believe]) issue the F6 prompt to install
a driver? The following article indicates the F6 prompt will appear
which is when Giggs could install the SATA driver (provided his computer
has a floppy drive since, I believe, that's the only place that the
installer will look at later for the driver when it prompts for it).

http://www.geekstogo.com/forum/topic...speed=noscript

I forget who made it but remember I once had a utility that would read
the boot.ini from a partition, let you edit it locally, and then replace
the modified copy back in the NTFS partition. If you changed the
physical layout (disk number, partition number) by moving around hard
disks, this let you modify the boot.ini file to get the entry to match
there for where the hard disk was now.

On my 6-year old computer with its old BIOS (for which there are no
updates since Abit bit the dust), SATA support is iffy for the boot
device. I ran into too many errors, especially in backups to other
device types, and an occasional hang during the initial setup to detect
drives (before Windows even starts to load) that I gave up and went back
to using an IDE drive. However, it is unlikely that I bothered to clone
and IDE drive onto a SATA drive and instead very likely had only the
SATA drive powered up (with the IDE drives either powered down or their
IDE controller disabled in BIOS so they couldn't be found) and did a
fresh install. I prefer a fresh install rather than carrying along any
pollution from an old installation. Alas, I don't remember what was in
my boot.ini file regarding the entry for the SATA drive and partition
(i.e., I don't know if it use the multi() or scsi() notation). Giggs
might be trying to use cloning to save himself time for migrating from
IDE to SATA but if he spends more than 3 evenings on troubleshooting
that migration then the time would've been better spent doing a fresh
install on the SATA drive (and with it being the only detectable drive),
fresh installs of his apps (which means he'll probably exclude those he
found weren't really that important), and restore his data from backups;
however, if he doesn't have a floppy drive to use after hitting F6
during the install to get the SATA driver installed, other workarounds
will be needed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2012
R. Giggs. wrote:
> "R. Giggs." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:SInms.331793$(E-Mail Removed)4...
>> "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:k7cpj3$ui0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> R. Giggs. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmmm... quite a lot of info to take in there, I am not at all sure what
>>>> I am supposed
>>>> to be doing and why.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure what I shououdl be doing here, I am trying to think.
>>>>
>>>> 1) I have some sort of windows XP disk
>>>> 2) I have a couple of 'recovery' CD's knocking about.
>>>>
>>>> I am unsure if those disks will still work in the CD drive, it's a bit
>>>> hit and miss.
>>>> I have just bought some new DVD's and none of them work, however I do
>>>> have
>>>> some old DVD's which do work, ie
>>>>
>>>> So I am not too sure what the best plan is now.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I can try with just the sata drive in and boot on the recovery
>>>> CD/DVD
>>>> and see if it can do anything?
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow I think I will try rebooting with just the sata and a recovery CD
>>>> and see
>>>> what I get, at least I will find if that works or not, and I can see
>>>> what I can do or see from there.
>>> OK, here's the deal.
>>>
>>> Step 1: Copy old disk to new disk.
>>> Operation is not a success, unless new disk now boots by itself,
>>> without the old disk present.
>>>
>>> Step 2: If you know that's going to happen (you've already demonstrated a
>>> lack of boot, with the clone by itself), you need a safe
>>> environment
>>> that won't upset the clone. Booting with old and new disks
>>> connected,
>>> and selecting the new disk, doesn't count as a success. Booting
>>> with
>>> old and new connected, and using old to boot, is roughly back to
>>> step one. But personally, I want step 1 to be "clean", and for
>>> the
>>> thing to boot with the other disk absent.
>>>
>>> Step 3: The WinXP Recovery Console, is a boot system you can use, while
>>> only
>>> the clone is connected. You have your new drive connected, as
>>> well as
>>> an optical drive you can use for the WinXP disc. All the recent
>>> Windows OSes have a flavor of this. And to some extent, you can
>>> even
>>> use the other discs to do stuff. I can work on WinXP from a
>>> Windows 7
>>> recovery console from the Windows 7 DVD. But there are a few,
>>> select
>>> commands, that may be missing that way.

>>
>> Well it's seems my recovery DVD does not work properly, if I could burn
>> DVD's
>> I could create anther one but unfortunately I have no blank DVD's the
>> drive
>> will read or write to.
>> I will have to buy another brand of DVD's and see it the drive wil read
>> them.
>> I really do not like optical drives they have so many problems not
>> recognising disks,
>> I mean I have just bought a pack of 25 and it does not read any of them!!!
>> ALthough I did burn (linux image) to one of them by ignoring the fact it
>> it could not read it.
>> I can see it has been burned to by the marks on the disc.
>> I recalled the burning software also verified the drive yet the operating
>> system
>> does not recognise anything in the drive. ????
>> Maybe it is usuing a different driver, but that is just typical of the
>> problem you get with
>> optical drives.
>>
>>
>>> So the reason I'm suggesting that method, is booting the old disk and
>>> working
>>> from there, we don't really know whether the clone has been affected by
>>> anything
>>> you're doing or not. Whereas, running the recovery console, that's not
>>> going to screw the clone up.
>>>
>>> And my long procedure, that's example of forensic tests or repair
>>> procedures
>>> a person could try, in an effort to try to figure out why the cloning
>>> operation is failing. You don't have to do any of that, if you know
>>> there is something wrong with your recipe. If you know why it's broken,
>>> then go find another cloning method.
>>>
>>> When I've used Partition Magic in the past, to copy an OS from one
>>> disk to another, it changed the partition slot in the MBR, and that
>>> screwed up the boot.ini. So that's an example of something I'd
>>> now be looking for, based on discovering the bug in the past. If
>>> the tool you used, has a "reputation", or reviews or a forum
>>> where you can learn stuff about it, it may already be documented
>>> somewhere as to why it might not work.
>>>
>>> Paul

>>

>
>
> And just to prove my earlier point, "that is just typical of the
> problem you get with optical drives.", I just put the DVD in I had burned
> earlier and now it reads it despite sayingit was blank earlier!!!
>
> So maybe I will be able to use the new dvds after all?
>
> Well I tried a couple again and it does not recognise them, but I but the
> one I burned in again and it still recognises it, so may burning the other
> apparently
> dead DVD wil work, I will have to try and ceate a recovery DVD and see.


If you burn DVDs with "multisession", they need to be closed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisession#Sessions

What you need at the moment, is something to analyse the discs you've
already written. I suspect there isn't that much wrong with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsoBuster

"It has the ability to access "deleted" data
on multisession optical discs"

That suggests it may be able to analyse the discs you've already
made, and suggest what's wrong with them or what step is missing.

*******

When you get a new optical drive, it may need a firmware update.
So checking the firmware situation for the processor inside
the optical drive, is your first step.

If no reviewers comment on the need or availability of better firmware,
then the next step is running test media on the drive, and later scanning
it for errors. This is an example of an error scanning tool. Several
of the Nero utilities are free.

http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/...ed-quality.jpg

Discs are protected with multi-dimensional Reed Solomon error
correcting codes. When you see errors as in that scan, most of
those will be correctable. If the graph gets to thousands or tens
of thousands on the Y axis (and at that point the drive is not
making any forward progress reading and could be "stalled"),
then you know the errors are now uncorrectable. But in any case,
you need to do some research on those charts, and what's a good chart
and what's a bad chart. There are a couple forums (CDfreaks) where they review
optical drives and present error scans for media burned with them.

So testing the burn quality of the optical drive, is the "dialing in" phase.
You might test "three-packs" for example. If, say, some Verbatim
seems to work, you might buy a small spindle and give it a whirl.
So some amount of preparation (about a week of work), is needed
to make an optical drive "trustworthy". Some drives are crap,
and they never get very far. Scanning for errors, after a burn,
is one way to determine whether the drive will ever make
good media for you. The last two drives I bought were
very good, so with a bit of care to select a drive with
good reviews, you can be happy with it.

I don't think your problems are of that sort. Probably just
a session needs closing... or something. I'm not an optical
disc expert. Maybe IsoBuster can give some hints about it.

Nero Discspeed is free for download, as well as being provided
with certain Nero suites. The author (Eric Deppe), used to have
his own web site for distribution of that software, but now
the acquisition process is more torturous. You have to find
a site you can trust, to download it. Depending on how bloated
it has become, you might have to go back to an older version.
The second link here, should pop up a save dialog.

http://www.nero.com/enu/downloads/index.php

( http://www.nero.com/redir.php?id=3538 )

This version would be a year older.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/Nero_DiscSpeed_d118.html

Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2012
VanguardLH wrote:
> "Paul" wrote:
>
>> In the BIOS, it's important that the SATA and IDE drive settings,
>> are selected according to the drivers already loaded in Windows.
>> When you cloned the drive, there should have been a driver at
>> that time, to access the SATA drive. So both an IDE and SATA driver
>> must have been there. The only way to get around such a situation,
>> is if you cloned with an OS other than the one that is being
>> copied to both disks.

>
> If Giggs had not first installed the SATA driver into his working OS
> running on the IDE drive and then cloned it to the SATA drive, could he
> boot using *just* the SATA drive and use the Windows install disc to do
> a Repair install to get the F6 prompt to insert a floppy to install the
> SATA driver?
>
> I also have to wonder about the boot.ini file. The entries for an IDE
> hard disk are different than for a SATA hard disk. The SATA hard disk
> looks like a SCSI device so its device and partition definition for an
> entry in the boot.ini would be different.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/102873
>
> In the boot.ini file on the system partition, the OP's old IDE drive
> would be defined using the "multi" definition to locate the physical
> disk and partition of where was the Windows boot partition. For SATA
> drives, the "scsi" definition is used. What's confusing is that I've
> read some users of SATA still have the multi() definition to find that
> device. Apparently it appears dependent on how the mobo implemented
> SATA. If it is a separate controller chip or card, it's treated as a
> SCSI-like device. If the mobo's chipset incorporates SATA support then
> it might be treated in the BIOS similarly to how it treats an IDE device
> with the result that multi() gets used for SATA. Giggs never mention
> WHAT brand and model of mobo he has; otherwise, we could go look at its
> specs, pics, and manual to see how SATA was implement there and what
> BIOS settings apply to it.
>
> Note to Griggs: Microsoft names the partitions in backwards order to
> what users think is intuitive. The "system" partition is where are the
> files to find the boot sector and loader while the "boot" partition is
> where is the rest of the OS. You boot using the system partition which
> then loads the rest of the OS from the boot partition. Yeah, go figure.
> In most setups, the system and boot partitions are the same (users
> typically install Windows into one partition) but they can be different.
> The boot.ini is in Windows' system partition.
>
> From that same MS article, the ntbootdd.sys driver needs to be used when
> the scsi() notation is used in boot.ini. During installation, and if
> scsi() is used then the installer includes the ntbootdd.sys driver. On
> my IDE-based install, that file is not in my Windows system/boot
> partition. It appears that file shows up if you *install* onto a SCSI
> device (whether actual SCSI or SATA which gets treated as SCSI). I'm
> not sure how you are going to get the ntbootdd.sys driver into an
> instance of Windows installed on and running from an IDE hard disk.
> Maybe you have to specify the SATA disk as the boot device but use the
> Windows install disc to perform a Repair install (aka in-place upgrade)
> so it sees the device is SCSI-like and includes the ntbootdd.sys driver.
>
> Hmm, does the Repair install (by booting using the Windows XP install CD
> and selecting Repair [twice, I believe]) issue the F6 prompt to install
> a driver? The following article indicates the F6 prompt will appear
> which is when Giggs could install the SATA driver (provided his computer
> has a floppy drive since, I believe, that's the only place that the
> installer will look at later for the driver when it prompts for it).
>
> http://www.geekstogo.com/forum/topic...speed=noscript
>
> I forget who made it but remember I once had a utility that would read
> the boot.ini from a partition, let you edit it locally, and then replace
> the modified copy back in the NTFS partition. If you changed the
> physical layout (disk number, partition number) by moving around hard
> disks, this let you modify the boot.ini file to get the entry to match
> there for where the hard disk was now.
>
> On my 6-year old computer with its old BIOS (for which there are no
> updates since Abit bit the dust), SATA support is iffy for the boot
> device. I ran into too many errors, especially in backups to other
> device types, and an occasional hang during the initial setup to detect
> drives (before Windows even starts to load) that I gave up and went back
> to using an IDE drive. However, it is unlikely that I bothered to clone
> and IDE drive onto a SATA drive and instead very likely had only the
> SATA drive powered up (with the IDE drives either powered down or their
> IDE controller disabled in BIOS so they couldn't be found) and did a
> fresh install. I prefer a fresh install rather than carrying along any
> pollution from an old installation. Alas, I don't remember what was in
> my boot.ini file regarding the entry for the SATA drive and partition
> (i.e., I don't know if it use the multi() or scsi() notation). Giggs
> might be trying to use cloning to save himself time for migrating from
> IDE to SATA but if he spends more than 3 evenings on troubleshooting
> that migration then the time would've been better spent doing a fresh
> install on the SATA drive (and with it being the only detectable drive),
> fresh installs of his apps (which means he'll probably exclude those he
> found weren't really that important), and restore his data from backups;
> however, if he doesn't have a floppy drive to use after hitting F6
> during the install to get the SATA driver installed, other workarounds
> will be needed.


Yes, you could hammer it with a repair install, but where's the fun
in that ? My one experience with a "repair install", was that while
it is claimed to preserve "100% of user settings", in fact it doesn't.
The result was still annoying, and required fixing things that had
been fixed before. And with the little details about uninstalling
advanced versions of Internet Explorer first, can be a little
complicated.

I would sooner invest the time in simple minded forensics,
than do all the research needed to guarantee a successful
repair install.

As for the SATA drive and the boot.ini ARC, there's probably a couple
outcomes there. SATA can be virtually identical to IDE,
with the right hardware and setting (clone from IDE to SATA
and keep the ARC). Or in the case of some of the early add-on chips
for SATA, it does appear as pseudo-SCSI. It made writing the
first drivers easier.

I don't do anything special for my SATA here. I just avoid
AHCI/RAID and stick with Compatible or Enhanced. And on my
first motherboards with SATA, I probably used IDE drives
for the most part. As SATA was relatively new at the time.
I waited a long time, before I got my first SATA drive.
Perhaps three or four SATA motherboards went by, before my
first SATA drive showed up.

Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
R. Giggs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2012

"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:k7d6s6$v63$(E-Mail Removed)...
> R. Giggs. wrote:
>> "R. Giggs." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:SInms.331793$(E-Mail Removed)4...
>>> "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:k7cpj3$ui0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> R. Giggs. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hmmmm... quite a lot of info to take in there, I am not at all sure
>>>>> what I am supposed
>>>>> to be doing and why.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure what I shououdl be doing here, I am trying to think.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) I have some sort of windows XP disk
>>>>> 2) I have a couple of 'recovery' CD's knocking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am unsure if those disks will still work in the CD drive, it's a bit
>>>>> hit and miss.
>>>>> I have just bought some new DVD's and none of them work, however I do
>>>>> have
>>>>> some old DVD's which do work, ie
>>>>>
>>>>> So I am not too sure what the best plan is now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I can try with just the sata drive in and boot on the recovery
>>>>> CD/DVD
>>>>> and see if it can do anything?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyhow I think I will try rebooting with just the sata and a recovery
>>>>> CD and see
>>>>> what I get, at least I will find if that works or not, and I can see
>>>>> what I can do or see from there.
>>>> OK, here's the deal.
>>>>
>>>> Step 1: Copy old disk to new disk.
>>>> Operation is not a success, unless new disk now boots by
>>>> itself,
>>>> without the old disk present.
>>>>
>>>> Step 2: If you know that's going to happen (you've already demonstrated
>>>> a
>>>> lack of boot, with the clone by itself), you need a safe
>>>> environment
>>>> that won't upset the clone. Booting with old and new disks
>>>> connected,
>>>> and selecting the new disk, doesn't count as a success. Booting
>>>> with
>>>> old and new connected, and using old to boot, is roughly back
>>>> to
>>>> step one. But personally, I want step 1 to be "clean", and for
>>>> the
>>>> thing to boot with the other disk absent.
>>>>
>>>> Step 3: The WinXP Recovery Console, is a boot system you can use, while
>>>> only
>>>> the clone is connected. You have your new drive connected, as
>>>> well as
>>>> an optical drive you can use for the WinXP disc. All the recent
>>>> Windows OSes have a flavor of this. And to some extent, you can
>>>> even
>>>> use the other discs to do stuff. I can work on WinXP from a
>>>> Windows 7
>>>> recovery console from the Windows 7 DVD. But there are a few,
>>>> select
>>>> commands, that may be missing that way.
>>>
>>> Well it's seems my recovery DVD does not work properly, if I could burn
>>> DVD's
>>> I could create anther one but unfortunately I have no blank DVD's the
>>> drive
>>> will read or write to.
>>> I will have to buy another brand of DVD's and see it the drive wil read
>>> them.
>>> I really do not like optical drives they have so many problems not
>>> recognising disks,
>>> I mean I have just bought a pack of 25 and it does not read any of
>>> them!!!
>>> ALthough I did burn (linux image) to one of them by ignoring the fact
>>> it it could not read it.
>>> I can see it has been burned to by the marks on the disc.
>>> I recalled the burning software also verified the drive yet the
>>> operating system
>>> does not recognise anything in the drive. ????
>>> Maybe it is usuing a different driver, but that is just typical of the
>>> problem you get with
>>> optical drives.
>>>
>>>
>>>> So the reason I'm suggesting that method, is booting the old disk and
>>>> working
>>>> from there, we don't really know whether the clone has been affected by
>>>> anything
>>>> you're doing or not. Whereas, running the recovery console, that's not
>>>> going to screw the clone up.
>>>>
>>>> And my long procedure, that's example of forensic tests or repair
>>>> procedures
>>>> a person could try, in an effort to try to figure out why the cloning
>>>> operation is failing. You don't have to do any of that, if you know
>>>> there is something wrong with your recipe. If you know why it's broken,
>>>> then go find another cloning method.
>>>>
>>>> When I've used Partition Magic in the past, to copy an OS from one
>>>> disk to another, it changed the partition slot in the MBR, and that
>>>> screwed up the boot.ini. So that's an example of something I'd
>>>> now be looking for, based on discovering the bug in the past. If
>>>> the tool you used, has a "reputation", or reviews or a forum
>>>> where you can learn stuff about it, it may already be documented
>>>> somewhere as to why it might not work.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>

>>
>>
>> And just to prove my earlier point, "that is just typical of the
>> problem you get with optical drives.", I just put the DVD in I had
>> burned
>> earlier and now it reads it despite sayingit was blank earlier!!!
>>
>> So maybe I will be able to use the new dvds after all?
>>
>> Well I tried a couple again and it does not recognise them, but I but the
>> one I burned in again and it still recognises it, so may burning the
>> other apparently
>> dead DVD wil work, I will have to try and ceate a recovery DVD and see.

>
> If you burn DVDs with "multisession", they need to be closed.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisession#Sessions
>
> What you need at the moment, is something to analyse the discs you've
> already written. I suspect there isn't that much wrong with them.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsoBuster
>
> "It has the ability to access "deleted" data
> on multisession optical discs"
>
> That suggests it may be able to analyse the discs you've already
> made, and suggest what's wrong with them or what step is missing.
>
> *******
>
> When you get a new optical drive, it may need a firmware update.
> So checking the firmware situation for the processor inside
> the optical drive, is your first step.
>
> If no reviewers comment on the need or availability of better firmware,
> then the next step is running test media on the drive, and later scanning
> it for errors. This is an example of an error scanning tool. Several
> of the Nero utilities are free.
>
> http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/...ed-quality.jpg
>
> Discs are protected with multi-dimensional Reed Solomon error
> correcting codes. When you see errors as in that scan, most of
> those will be correctable. If the graph gets to thousands or tens
> of thousands on the Y axis (and at that point the drive is not
> making any forward progress reading and could be "stalled"),
> then you know the errors are now uncorrectable. But in any case,
> you need to do some research on those charts, and what's a good chart
> and what's a bad chart. There are a couple forums (CDfreaks) where they
> review
> optical drives and present error scans for media burned with them.
>
> So testing the burn quality of the optical drive, is the "dialing in"
> phase.
> You might test "three-packs" for example. If, say, some Verbatim
> seems to work, you might buy a small spindle and give it a whirl.
> So some amount of preparation (about a week of work), is needed
> to make an optical drive "trustworthy". Some drives are crap,
> and they never get very far. Scanning for errors, after a burn,
> is one way to determine whether the drive will ever make
> good media for you. The last two drives I bought were
> very good, so with a bit of care to select a drive with
> good reviews, you can be happy with it.
>
> I don't think your problems are of that sort. Probably just
> a session needs closing... or something. I'm not an optical
> disc expert. Maybe IsoBuster can give some hints about it.
>
> Nero Discspeed is free for download, as well as being provided
> with certain Nero suites. The author (Eric Deppe), used to have
> his own web site for distribution of that software, but now
> the acquisition process is more torturous. You have to find
> a site you can trust, to download it. Depending on how bloated
> it has become, you might have to go back to an older version.
> The second link here, should pop up a save dialog.
>
> http://www.nero.com/enu/downloads/index.php
>
> ( http://www.nero.com/redir.php?id=3538 )
>
> This version would be a year older.
>
> http://www.majorgeeks.com/Nero_DiscSpeed_d118.html
>
> Paul


Thanks, what seems to be the case is that a lot of blank discs seem to be
'invisible' untill something is written to them.

I do have some older discs while will somehow disable the DVD and
make it disappear off the list of drives somehow.

I used "Reflect" to create a recovery CD, there were tow options, a LINUX
one ot a windows one, The windows one requires a large down load so
I chose the LINUX one, I was a bit surprised it was only 12mb in size
thought. I will create a windows one later.

Few things I tried if I recall correctly. I could run a SMART test from
the BIOS on the SATA drive alone, so the BIOS can see the drive OK for sure.

I also booted in an old MSDOS CD, howver I could see no other drives
bar the one I was one, that might be a perculairty of DOS though.

I have just had thought though, I never checked the pins on the
drive ie for master slave or cable select. Howver it seems it does not
matter about that for SATA drves.

Another thing is I was allowed to only create one recovery disc on
my PC from HP and that does not see to work. Indeed I just out that
recover disc into the drive and now the drive has locked itself and
disappeared
off the drive list.

I find stuff like that pretty unacceptable really, which is why I had pretty
much
stopped using optical drives, it is just way too much trouble!!
I mean there is basically some sort of design faulty when things like that
happen.

I may try recloning the drive but that should not really make any
difference.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2012
R. Giggs. wrote:

>
> Thanks, what seems to be the case is that a lot of blank discs seem to be
> 'invisible' untill something is written to them.
>
> I do have some older discs while will somehow disable the DVD and
> make it disappear off the list of drives somehow.
>
> I used "Reflect" to create a recovery CD, there were tow options, a LINUX
> one ot a windows one, The windows one requires a large down load so
> I chose the LINUX one, I was a bit surprised it was only 12mb in size
> thought. I will create a windows one later.
>
> Few things I tried if I recall correctly. I could run a SMART test from
> the BIOS on the SATA drive alone, so the BIOS can see the drive OK for sure.
>
> I also booted in an old MSDOS CD, howver I could see no other drives
> bar the one I was one, that might be a perculairty of DOS though.
>
> I have just had thought though, I never checked the pins on the
> drive ie for master slave or cable select. Howver it seems it does not
> matter about that for SATA drves.
>
> Another thing is I was allowed to only create one recovery disc on
> my PC from HP and that does not see to work. Indeed I just out that
> recover disc into the drive and now the drive has locked itself and
> disappeared
> off the drive list.
>
> I find stuff like that pretty unacceptable really, which is why I had pretty
> much
> stopped using optical drives, it is just way too much trouble!!
> I mean there is basically some sort of design faulty when things like that
> happen.
>
> I may try recloning the drive but that should not really make any
> difference.


*Every* DVD I've burned here, exists on a hard drive as an ISO9660.

If the DVD media goes bad, I can burn another.

When making "recovery media" from a new computer, you immediately
"image" all the freshly burned discs. Then, store those ISO9660
files on a hard drive or two (i.e. also on your external
backup disk drive).

I used to have the problem you describe, with Memorex CDRW discs.
Burn today, gone tomorrow. So it does happen. But I haven't had that
problem recently, with the small amount of DVDs I burn (about a 6 inch
stack).

*******

SATA doesn't have Master, Slave, Cable_Select (~ 10 pin block).
SATA has Force150 and Spread Spectrum, and jumpers for those
are only necessary in specific situations (VIA chips and Mac computers).

The BIOS shows "Master" and "Slave" designations for SATA cabling,
because of the emulation being done there. Some aspects of the BIOS
are still in "IDE land" when it comes to the program logic. So they
just arbitrarily label one port a Master and another a Slave. The
designation that way, is not a function of some jumper on the drive.

*******

MSDOS supports FAT file systems. Just about any version
should support something like FAT12 or FAT16. (At least, any
version you're likely to have in hand. Not something you
borrowed from the Smithsonian.)

The MSDOS floppy you make in Win98 ("sys a:"), that one
may support FAT32.

MSDOS doesn't support NTFS. There are things like NTFS4DOS
that you can add to an MSDOS floppy, but they're not exactly
convenient. LFS (long filename) is not supported, only 8.3
shorthand for the NTFS file listings (useless for practical
work).

If you need to format a huge disk (2TB) to FAT32, there
is the ridgecrop formatter. It does things, that the Microsoft
one won't. While this page is covered in advertising (to pay for
web site bandwidth), the actual files are here.

http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/ind...at32format.htm

http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/dow...at32format.zip

http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/dow...2formatsrc.zip (not essential)

I only mention that, in case some day you happen to be running from
MSDOS, and want an extremely large partition that MSDOS can
read and write.

*******

It is possible to create a "bare, minimal" Linux OS, that fits in
a relatively small space. The Reflect one (12MB), isn't the smallest
possible. I think possibly DBAN had a smaller image, which seemed
quite capable (had lots of storage drivers). When you get
a 700MB Ubuntu disc, most of that is utilities and fancy GUI
stuff. For fixed function boot discs, you can make the core
quite tiny.

I don't know what the attraction would be, of downloading the
huge WAIK kit from Microsoft, and making some kind of WinPE
boot CD. When the Linux one is ready to go.

Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
R. Giggs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2012

"VanguardLH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:k7d65s$723$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Paul" wrote:
>
>> In the BIOS, it's important that the SATA and IDE drive settings,
>> are selected according to the drivers already loaded in Windows.
>> When you cloned the drive, there should have been a driver at
>> that time, to access the SATA drive. So both an IDE and SATA driver
>> must have been there. The only way to get around such a situation,
>> is if you cloned with an OS other than the one that is being
>> copied to both disks.

>
> If Giggs had not first installed the SATA driver into his working OS
> running on the IDE drive and then cloned it to the SATA drive, could he
> boot using *just* the SATA drive and use the Windows install disc to do
> a Repair install to get the F6 prompt to insert a floppy to install the
> SATA driver?
>
> I also have to wonder about the boot.ini file. The entries for an IDE
> hard disk are different than for a SATA hard disk. The SATA hard disk
> looks like a SCSI device so its device and partition definition for an
> entry in the boot.ini would be different.


Well that sounds kind of interesting, however I am not really familiar with
a lot
of this stuff. FOr one I am not too sure what you mean about the SATA
driver.
By the way I don't think I have a windows install disc, so I don't think I
can do that.
The computer came without a windows disc, instead it came with a recovery
partition
on the drive. You were given the chance of also make a recovery DVD, but you
are
only allowed to make one of thos and the one I made seems to be faulty.

The thing about the boot.ini sounds significant if it different on a SATA
drive, I mean
that sounds like you could not do a clone and expect it to work, and it
certainly does
not work lol. I will have to look into that, for a start I am not sure what
a boot.ini
is or does anyway, so I need to google that.

OK I see wha it is it is just this file


[boot loader]
timeout=15
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOW S
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Micro soft Windows XP Home
Edition" /fastdetect /NoExecute=OptOut /usepmtimer
C:\CMDCONS\BOOTSECT.DAT="Microsoft Windows Recovery Console" /cmdcons
c:\wubildr.mbr="Ubuntu"




>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/102873
>
> In the boot.ini file on the system partition, the OP's old IDE drive
> would be defined using the "multi" definition to locate the physical
> disk and partition of where was the Windows boot partition. For SATA
> drives, the "scsi" definition is used. What's confusing is that I've
> read some users of SATA still have the multi() definition to find that
> device. Apparently it appears dependent on how the mobo implemented
> SATA. If it is a separate controller chip or card, it's treated as a
> SCSI-like device. If the mobo's chipset incorporates SATA support then
> it might be treated in the BIOS similarly to how it treats an IDE device
> with the result that multi() gets used for SATA. Giggs never mention
> WHAT brand and model of mobo he has; otherwise, we could go look at its
> specs, pics, and manual to see how SATA was implement there and what
> BIOS settings apply to it.


OK sorry about that, but I will mention it now!!! (if I can remember/find
it!!)

My system

HP Pavilion a1307.uk Desktop PC

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/d...74&lang=en#N25


Mobo specificiation:-

http://www.elhvb.com/mboards/oem/hp/...stM_manual.pdf


There is a very INTERESTING STATEMENT in there:-
Please note that users cannot install OS, either WinME or Win98,

in their SATA hard drives. Under these two OSs, SATA can only be

used as an ordinary storage device.

OK that does not mention XP so perhaps not as interesting as I thought!!!



OK I will post this now and comment on the rest later so you can see the
mobo

spec.


> Note to Griggs: Microsoft names the partitions in backwards order to
> what users think is intuitive. The "system" partition is where are the
> files to find the boot sector and loader while the "boot" partition is
> where is the rest of the OS. You boot using the system partition which
> then loads the rest of the OS from the boot partition. Yeah, go figure.
> In most setups, the system and boot partitions are the same (users
> typically install Windows into one partition) but they can be different.
> The boot.ini is in Windows' system partition.



Not sure I follow this, I have two partition usually, the system partition
which
the system is booted from and aslo a revovery partition (because I don't
have a windowsXP
recovery disc or whatever it is called), however I do note the partitiions
seem to
be named backwards ie the last partion is given the lower letter.


>
> From that same MS article, the ntbootdd.sys driver needs to be used when
> the scsi() notation is used in boot.ini. During installation, and if
> scsi() is used then the installer includes the ntbootdd.sys driver. On
> my IDE-based install, that file is not in my Windows system/boot
> partition. It appears that file shows up if you *install* onto a SCSI
> device (whether actual SCSI or SATA which gets treated as SCSI). I'm
> not sure how you are going to get the ntbootdd.sys driver into an
> instance of Windows installed on and running from an IDE hard disk.
> Maybe you have to specify the SATA disk as the boot device but use the
> Windows install disc to perform a Repair install (aka in-place upgrade)
> so it sees the device is SCSI-like and includes the ntbootdd.sys driver.
>
> Hmm, does the Repair install (by booting using the Windows XP install CD
> and selecting Repair [twice, I believe]) issue the F6 prompt to install
> a driver? The following article indicates the F6 prompt will appear
> which is when Giggs could install the SATA driver (provided his computer
> has a floppy drive since, I believe, that's the only place that the
> installer will look at later for the driver when it prompts for it).
>
> http://www.geekstogo.com/forum/topic...speed=noscript
>
> I forget who made it but remember I once had a utility that would read
> the boot.ini from a partition, let you edit it locally, and then replace
> the modified copy back in the NTFS partition. If you changed the
> physical layout (disk number, partition number) by moving around hard
> disks, this let you modify the boot.ini file to get the entry to match
> there for where the hard disk was now.
>
> On my 6-year old computer with its old BIOS (for which there are no
> updates since Abit bit the dust), SATA support is iffy for the boot
> device. I ran into too many errors, especially in backups to other
> device types, and an occasional hang during the initial setup to detect
> drives (before Windows even starts to load) that I gave up and went back
> to using an IDE drive. However, it is unlikely that I bothered to clone
> and IDE drive onto a SATA drive and instead very likely had only the
> SATA drive powered up (with the IDE drives either powered down or their
> IDE controller disabled in BIOS so they couldn't be found) and did a
> fresh install. I prefer a fresh install rather than carrying along any
> pollution from an old installation. Alas, I don't remember what was in
> my boot.ini file regarding the entry for the SATA drive and partition
> (i.e., I don't know if it use the multi() or scsi() notation). Giggs
> might be trying to use cloning to save himself time for migrating from
> IDE to SATA but if he spends more than 3 evenings on troubleshooting
> that migration then the time would've been better spent doing a fresh
> install on the SATA drive (and with it being the only detectable drive),
> fresh installs of his apps (which means he'll probably exclude those he
> found weren't really that important), and restore his data from backups;
> however, if he doesn't have a floppy drive to use after hitting F6
> during the install to get the SATA driver installed, other workarounds
> will be needed.



 
Reply With Quote
 
R. Giggs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2012

"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:k7ef1o$kna$(E-Mail Removed)...
> R. Giggs. wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks, what seems to be the case is that a lot of blank discs seem to be
>> 'invisible' untill something is written to them.
>>
>> I do have some older discs while will somehow disable the DVD and
>> make it disappear off the list of drives somehow.
>>
>> I used "Reflect" to create a recovery CD, there were tow options, a LINUX
>> one ot a windows one, The windows one requires a large down load so
>> I chose the LINUX one, I was a bit surprised it was only 12mb in size
>> thought. I will create a windows one later.
>>
>> Few things I tried if I recall correctly. I could run a SMART test from
>> the BIOS on the SATA drive alone, so the BIOS can see the drive OK for
>> sure.
>>
>> I also booted in an old MSDOS CD, howver I could see no other drives
>> bar the one I was one, that might be a perculairty of DOS though.
>>
>> I have just had thought though, I never checked the pins on the
>> drive ie for master slave or cable select. Howver it seems it does not
>> matter about that for SATA drves.
>>
>> Another thing is I was allowed to only create one recovery disc on
>> my PC from HP and that does not see to work. Indeed I just out that
>> recover disc into the drive and now the drive has locked itself and
>> disappeared
>> off the drive list.
>>
>> I find stuff like that pretty unacceptable really, which is why I had
>> pretty much
>> stopped using optical drives, it is just way too much trouble!!
>> I mean there is basically some sort of design faulty when things like
>> that happen.
>>
>> I may try recloning the drive but that should not really make any
>> difference.

>
> *Every* DVD I've burned here, exists on a hard drive as an ISO9660.
>
> If the DVD media goes bad, I can burn another.



I guess I should have done that with the recovery DVD.
I am pretty sure I loaded it recently to look at and it seemed 'all there'.
If I an load it again I will make a fresh copy.
I havee never had call to use the recovery CD in the past so I was not too
bothered about it. I was not aware I was only allowed to makeone atthe time
anyway.
Also the drive worked well back then, pretty much perfect.

>
> When making "recovery media" from a new computer, you immediately
> "image" all the freshly burned discs. Then, store those ISO9660
> files on a hard drive or two (i.e. also on your external
> backup disk drive).
>
> I used to have the problem you describe, with Memorex CDRW discs.
> Burn today, gone tomorrow. So it does happen. But I haven't had that
> problem recently, with the small amount of DVDs I burn (about a 6 inch
> stack).
>
> *******
>
> SATA doesn't have Master, Slave, Cable_Select (~ 10 pin block).
> SATA has Force150 and Spread Spectrum, and jumpers for those
> are only necessary in specific situations (VIA chips and Mac computers).
>
> The BIOS shows "Master" and "Slave" designations for SATA cabling,
> because of the emulation being done there. Some aspects of the BIOS
> are still in "IDE land" when it comes to the program logic. So they
> just arbitrarily label one port a Master and another a Slave. The
> designation that way, is not a function of some jumper on the drive.



So is there a master and slave SATA connector on the board?
Mine are labled SATA 1 and SATA 2, not sure which I am using off hand.
A quick looks says SATA 2, maybe I can try SATA 1 and see if that helps.

>
> *******
>
> MSDOS supports FAT file systems. Just about any version
> should support something like FAT12 or FAT16. (At least, any
> version you're likely to have in hand. Not something you
> borrowed from the Smithsonian.)


It says DOS 6.22 on the disc. I wrote that on it at some point.

>
> The MSDOS floppy you make in Win98 ("sys a:"), that one
> may support FAT32.
>
> MSDOS doesn't support NTFS. There are things like NTFS4DOS
> that you can add to an MSDOS floppy, but they're not exactly
> convenient. LFS (long filename) is not supported, only 8.3
> shorthand for the NTFS file listings (useless for practical
> work).
>
> If you need to format a huge disk (2TB) to FAT32, there
> is the ridgecrop formatter. It does things, that the Microsoft
> one won't. While this page is covered in advertising (to pay for
> web site bandwidth), the actual files are here.
>
> http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/ind...at32format.htm
>
> http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/dow...at32format.zip
>
> http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/dow...2formatsrc.zip (not
> essential)
>
> I only mention that, in case some day you happen to be running from
> MSDOS, and want an extremely large partition that MSDOS can
> read and write.
>
> *******
>
> It is possible to create a "bare, minimal" Linux OS, that fits in
> a relatively small space. The Reflect one (12MB), isn't the smallest
> possible. I think possibly DBAN had a smaller image, which seemed
> quite capable (had lots of storage drivers). When you get
> a 700MB Ubuntu disc, most of that is utilities and fancy GUI
> stuff. For fixed function boot discs, you can make the core
> quite tiny.
>


I booted on the LInux disc, the 12mb one, but it asked me for the
ISO image, which was on the disconnected drive - lol.
ANyway I have burned that to a DVD now, although it was
a lot smaller than the 1.6GB of data I downloaded, it was about 126MB IIRC
which confused me.
To be honest I do not know what reflect thing was doing after it downloaded,
it was
doing all sort of stuff which I had no clue about, I think there was
something
about windows PE or something, I dunno. Bit of a mystery.

> I don't know what the attraction would be, of downloading the
> huge WAIK kit from Microsoft, and making some kind of WinPE
> boot CD. When the Linux one is ready to go.


AH yes that's it WinPE, no idea what that was all about.

The Linux one was not ready to go anyway wher as far as I can see, at least
not without the ISO image, I have that now, good job you remined me.
It's on a DVD (I hope). I have also copied it onto the SATA drive if that
will help.
I could see the SATA drive when I booted from the Linux DVD.


I do get the feeling none of this will work though because I don't think it
sees the drive so I don't think it matters what I put on the drive.

It is like when I tried to boot from the faulty drive in a way, same
black/grey screen
with an underscore at the topleft whci just sits there.

Anyhow I will try a few things,

1) switch to sata 1

2) Boot on the linux dvd and give it the ISO it asks for and see what
happens!!

(not expecting much - lol).

>
> Paul



 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2012
R. Giggs. wrote:

<<some snip>>
>
> OK sorry about that, but I will mention it now!!! (if I can remember/find
> it!!)
>
> My system
>
> HP Pavilion a1307.uk Desktop PC
>
> http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/d...74&lang=en#N25
>
>
> Mobo specificiation:-
>
> http://www.elhvb.com/mboards/oem/hp/...stM_manual.pdf
>
>
> There is a very INTERESTING STATEMENT in there:-
> Please note that users cannot install OS, either WinME or Win98,
>
> in their SATA hard drives. Under these two OSs, SATA can only be
>
> used as an ordinary storage device.
>
> OK that does not mention XP so perhaps not as interesting as I thought!!!
>


That's interesting.

Your Southbridge (the part that connects to disks) is SB400.
Without a heatsink on it, you might see "IXP400" printed on top.

I cannot find a block diagram. (Not the official kind AMD
has provided for other chips.)

And I think I can see a potential reason (conspiracy theory).
The chip may have made use of third-party IP blocks (and,
more than one of them, as the USB implementation in that
chip is inferior).

The SB400 seems to support two IDE connectors (four drives)
and four SATA connectors (four more drives). Not all motherboards
solder four SATA connectors on, to access those interfaces. One
laptop, didn't have any SATA connectors at all. So some designs
don't use the "max ports" available.

In my searches, I ran into a reference to the usage of a
"SATA_SIL" Linux driver with the SB400. Now, normally, SIL would
mean SIL3112 or Silicon Image SIL3112 chip. The fact that
Linux driver works with SB400, implies ATI bought an intellectual
property block straight from Silicon Image, and put it in the
SB400. Since there are four SATA ports, there could be two
SIL3112 blocks present.

The SIL3112 is SATA I (150MB/sec). I cannot find any references
to it not working with SATA II drives (a problem the VIA chips had).
But the BIOS code shipped with SIL3112 equipped boards, there was
a bug in there, where drives larger than 500GB or so, would cause
the BIOS to hang during boot. I don't think the cursor would even
flash, because the code is in a tight loop in the SIL module. For
the affected motherboards, if you connect a SATA drive larger than
500GB (like a 750GB or 1TB) drive, the BIOS screen freezes before
the OS can boot.

Silicon Image eventually issued a bug fix, but for motherboards,
it would be the responsibility of the motherboard maker to
incorporate a new code module into a release BIOS. On Asus
A7N8X motherboards, it took forever, before a newer module
of that sort was included. I think at least one person, was
hacking in their own code update, to speed up the process.

Now, if the SB400 uses

1) Silicon Image IP blocks in hardware.
2) It would be natural to use Silicon Image BIOS rom code for
Extended INT 0x13 boot code for the BIOS. This is the
code with the "large drive bug".
3) The "chipset driver package", would include Silicon Image
RAID management code. For systems with enough of the
SATA ports soldered to the motherboard.

If I look in http://pciids.sourceforge.net/pci.ids , I
see VEN/DEV for the SATA ports of SB400.

1002 Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI
4379 IXP SB400 Serial ATA Controller

And using a driver file here, I see the following
in a SIL3112 package (file SI3112.inf). The first
entry is for vanilla SIL3112 add-on chip. (I got
SI3112.inf from file 3112A_x86_win_idvr-12057.zip
104,771 bytes.)

PCI\VEN_1095&DEV_3112.DeviceDesc="Silicon Image SiI 3112 SATALink Controller"

But in the same file I can find this. Which implies
the hardware inside the SB400 SATA, is very very similar
to the SIL3112. It also means, if you're aware of bugs
in SIL3112 stuff, they could also affect SB400.

PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4379.DeviceDesc="ATI 4379 Serial ATA Controller"

From the same file...

; List of controller subsystem IDs to be supported by the SI3112.mpd driver on
; Windows 98/ME systems.

which tells me that you might be able to get Win98 working
as well. (I've only got one SIL3112 here, and don't ask
me to dig out that motherboard, which is retired
I don't plan on any Win98 installs this week.)

*******

In any case, this has nothing to do with the cloning problems.

If you were able to copy the old drive to the new drive, then
a driver had to be present for that. If the cloning program
reboots the computer to do the copy, then the SATA driver
*could* be missing (since a "foreign" OS could be doing the
clone copy). If the clone operation is done "hot",
using Volume Shadow Service (VSS - macrium reflect does this),
then you might very well be effectively proving the SATA driver
is present.

With the old disk booted, right now, go to Device Manager, and
have a look for

"ATI 4379 Serial ATA Controller"

Maybe the string won't be exactly that, but you need some proof
that a driver has been installed for the SATA port. And
Device Manager is one way to look for proof. Do properties,
check for driver files. One of the driver files might be Si3112.sys.

One way to get to Device Manager, is Start : Run : devmgmt.msc

HTH,
Paul
 
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
SATA HDD #2 not seen only when SATA #1 is booted - Bobb - Computer Information 5 12-27-2009 06:01 PM
SATA RAID 2 with AMCC 9950 SE SATA 2 Conroller in x64 Jim Windows 64bit 5 04-12-2008 12:31 AM
Does x64 require a SATA RAID Driver to install non-RAID SATA Drive =?Utf-8?B?VGhlb3JldGljYWxseQ==?= Windows 64bit 6 07-18-2005 05:45 AM
Hard drives - Can I mix SATA and non-SATA? John Smith Computer Support 5 10-08-2004 06:51 AM
hard drive cloning tami Microsoft Certification 1 12-15-2003 06:12 PM



Advertisments