Formatting on drive wiped out when testing another drive

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by docsavage20@yahoo.com, May 25, 2006.

  1. Rod Speed Guest

    Ralph Wade Phillips <> wrote
    > Rod Speed <> wrote
    >> 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.


    Sure, but there is more than just what it puts in the partition
    boot blocks, persistence with the NT/2K/XP family also
    involves the database in the registry of the drive letters.

    > 2K - Might have had the NT4 handling.


    Yeah, forget exactly when that other stuff changed.

    > But he OBIOUSLY hasn't had much experience with XP


    Yep, and hadnt even noticed that the drive enumation is done
    completely differently in the NT/2K/XP family as far as letter
    persistence is concerned to how its done in the 9x/ME family.

    > - which writes that damn persistent drive letter out ANYTIME
    > Disk Manglement fucks over ... err, touches a logical partition.


    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.
     
    Rod Speed, May 28, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote:

    |>
    |><> wrote in message
    |>news:...
    |>
    |>>
    |>> 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.
    |>
    |> 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.
    |>
    |> As is WELL documented by Microsoft and others.
    |>
    |> Keep this up, and you'll look like ever more and anon someone who
    |>doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.

    Ok one more time, Two Drives both are bootable one new one out of an
    old machine both Fat16 second - on both systems NT - W2K with 98 on
    C:.

    HD0 was C HD1 was D: HD0 filled up the drive letters where HD1 took
    over.




    |> 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: ...
    |>
    |> RwP
    |>
    |> RwP
    |>


    --
    Save a planet
    http://www.samorost2.net/samorost1/
     
    , May 28, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote:

    |>> 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.

    And a follow up, no I haven't experienced this on XP as I have only
    one drive one it and always had one drive (this computer) - but darn
    if I don't feel like adding another.

    The second hard drive taking the D: spot was a problem for many
    people, over the years at one time - mayhaps XP fix;d this as well as
    now not being able to create a CON directory - my suggestion to the OP
    wayyy up there, was maybe this had happen'd and it wasn't his
    partition he thought it was

    --
    Save a planet
    http://www.samorost2.net/samorost1/
     
    , May 28, 2006
    #43
  4. Rod Speed Guest

    wrote
    > Ralph Wade Phillips <> wrote


    >>>> 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.


    > And a follow up, no I haven't experienced this on XP as I have
    > only one drive one it and always had one drive (this computer)


    So you hadnt even noticed what the NT/2K/XP family
    does with drive letters when extra drives are added.

    Its done quite differently to the way its done in the 9x/ME family.

    > but darn if I don't feel like adding another.


    You'll find its a lot more bulletproof drive letter wise.

    > The second hard drive taking the D: spot was a
    > problem for many people, over the years at one time


    Yes, but in the 9x/ME family.

    > - mayhaps XP fix;d this


    No perhaps about it. So did NT and 2K too.

    > as well as now not being able to create a CON directory -
    > my suggestion to the OP wayyy up there, was maybe this
    > had happen'd and it wasn't his partition he thought it was


    And you were just plain wrong with XP, it doesnt work like that.
     
    Rod Speed, May 28, 2006
    #44
  5. Guest

    "Rod Speed" <> wrote:

    |>So you hadnt even noticed what the NT/2K/XP family
    |>does with drive letters when extra drives are added.

    sigh......



    --
    Save a planet
    http://www.samorost2.net/samorost1/
     
    , May 28, 2006
    #45
  6. Rod Speed Guest

    wrote
    > Rod Speed <> wrote


    >> So you hadnt even noticed what the NT/2K/XP family
    >> does with drive letters when extra drives are added.


    > sigh......


    Heavy breathing aint gunna save your bacon, child.
     
    Rod Speed, May 28, 2006
    #46
  7. JAD Guest

    "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message
    news:S7leg.33290$4H.22437@dukeread03...
    > Howdy!
    >
    > "Rod Speed" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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 fucks 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?
     
    JAD, May 29, 2006
    #47
  8. Folkert Rienstra wrote:

    <snip>

    Soory, but your reply was such an incoherent jumble I'm not going to bother.
     
    David Maynard, May 29, 2006
    #48
  9. Rod Speed Guest

    David Maynard <> wrote
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote


    > <snip>


    > Soory, but your reply was such an incoherent jumble I'm not going to bother.


    Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
     
    Rod Speed, May 29, 2006
    #49
  10. Howdy!

    "Rod Speed" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ralph Wade Phillips <> wrote
    > > Rod Speed <> wrote
    > >> 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.

    >
    > Sure, but there is more than just what it puts in the partition
    > boot blocks, persistence with the NT/2K/XP family also
    > involves the database in the registry of the drive letters.


    And said registry database was there for non-BIOS-enumerated
    partitions in NT 4.0, because I have had several machines running 4.0
    workstation (and yes, even server!) move drives around due to partitions.

    But NOT if the drive was prepared by NT 4.0's Disk Administrator ...

    >
    > > 2K - Might have had the NT4 handling.

    >
    > Yeah, forget exactly when that other stuff changed.
    >
    > > But he OBIOUSLY hasn't had much experience with XP

    >
    > Yep, and hadnt even noticed that the drive enumation is done
    > completely differently in the NT/2K/XP family as far as letter
    > persistence is concerned to how its done in the 9x/ME family.
    >
    > > - which writes that damn persistent drive letter out ANYTIME
    > > Disk Manglement fucks over ... err, touches a logical partition.

    >
    > 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 ...

    RwP
     
    Ralph Wade Phillips, May 29, 2006
    #50
  11. Howdy!

    "JAD" <> wrote in message
    news:Yiseg.429$...
    >
    > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message
    > news:S7leg.33290$4H.22437@dukeread03...
    > > Howdy!
    > >
    > > "Rod Speed" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > 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 fucks 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?

    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
     
    Ralph Wade Phillips, May 29, 2006
    #51
  12. Odie Guest

    David Maynard wrote:
    >
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Soory, but your reply was such an incoherent jumble I'm not going to bother.


    That's Folkert for you.

    Nothing constructive, but excessive amounts of useless drivel.

    Happy to condemn posts, but posts nothing constructive or informative
    himself.

    I suppose it goes with the territory.

    Useless waste of time.


    Odie
    --
    Retrodata
    www.retrodata.co.uk
    Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
     
    Odie, May 29, 2006
    #52
  13. Eric Gisin Guest

    You are a fucking moron. There are no "bios drive letters".

    "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message news:pzBeg.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 ...
    >
     
    Eric Gisin, May 29, 2006
    #53
  14. Guest

    "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> 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.

    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
     
    , May 29, 2006
    #54
  15. Howdy!

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> 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.

    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.

    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
     
    Ralph Wade Phillips, May 29, 2006
    #55
  16. Howdy!

    "Eric Gisin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You are a fucking 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

    >
    > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message

    news:pzBeg.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 ...
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Ralph Wade Phillips, May 29, 2006
    #56
  17. Eric Gisin Guest

    You and Ralph together are more stupid than Arnie.
    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" <> wrote in message news:plGeg.33427$4H.16479@dukeread03...
    > Howdy!
    >
    > "Eric Gisin" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > You are a fucking 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
    >
     
    Eric Gisin, May 29, 2006
    #57
  18. Guest

    "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> 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 and stand by it. I guess experence beats out reading a web
    page.

    --
    http://www.crazyhamzters.com/flash/cunningstunt.html
     
    , May 29, 2006
    #58
  19. Guest

    , May 29, 2006
    #59
  20. Rod Speed Guest

    Ralph Wade Phillips <> wrote
    > Rod Speed <> wrote
    >> Ralph Wade Phillips <> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <> wrote
    >>>> 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.


    >> Sure, but there is more than just what it puts in the partition
    >> boot blocks, persistence with the NT/2K/XP family also
    >> involves the database in the registry of the drive letters.


    > And said registry database was there for non-BIOS-enumerated
    > partitions in NT 4.0, because I have had several machines running 4.0
    > workstation (and yes, even server!) move drives around due to partitions.


    Not clear what you mean by that last bit, after the bracket.

    > But NOT if the drive was prepared by NT 4.0's Disk Administrator ...


    >>> 2K - Might have had the NT4 handling.


    >> Yeah, forget exactly when that other stuff changed.


    >>> But he OBIOUSLY hasn't had much experience with XP


    >> Yep, and hadnt even noticed that the drive enumation is done
    >> completely differently in the NT/2K/XP family as far as letter
    >> persistence is concerned to how its done in the 9x/ME family.


    >>> - which writes that damn persistent drive letter out ANYTIME
    >>> Disk Manglement fucks over ... err, touches a logical partition.


    >> 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.


    Fraid so.

    > 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 ...


    I was JUST talking about NEW physical drives and drive letters there.

    > And I've been in several machines without anything
    > but floppies and the boot partition specified in
    > HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Mounted Devices ...
     
    Rod Speed, May 29, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Promajority

    Thunderbird Mail Wiped Out

    Promajority, Jan 30, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    3,618
    Promajority
    Jan 31, 2005
  2. Keep getting my server wiped out.

    , Jan 26, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    505
    zenner
    Jan 27, 2004
  3. BIOS wiped out - is it a virus?

    , Jul 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,935
    John Vogel
    Jul 21, 2004
  4. Skippyboy
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    459
    Skippyboy
    May 15, 2007
  5. E. Scrooge
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    670
    E. Scrooge
    May 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page