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
    > Eric Gisin <> wrote


    >> You are a fucking 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" <> 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 ...
     
    Rod Speed, May 29, 2006
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Rod Speed Guest

    wrote:
    > "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


    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.
     
    Rod Speed, May 29, 2006
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message news:plGeg.33427$4H.16479@dukeread03
    > Howdy!
    > "Eric Gisin" <> wrote in message news:...
    > > You are a fucking 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" <> 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 ...
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 29, 2006
    #63
  4. "Eric Gisin" <> wrote in message news:

    > 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" <> 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
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 29, 2006
    #64
  5. "Rod Speed" <> wrote in message news:
    > Folkert Rienstra <> wrote
    > > David Maynard <> wrote
    > > > Rod Speed wrote
    > > > > David Maynard <> wrote
    > > > > > Folkert Rienstra wrote
    > > > > > > David Maynard > wrote
    > > > > > > > wrote
    > > > > > > > > Rod Speed <> wrote
    > > > > > > > > > > wrote
    > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 29, 2006
    #65
  6. Rod Speed Guest

    Folkert Rienstra <> wrote
    > Rod Speed <> wrote
    >> Folkert Rienstra <> wrote
    >>> David Maynard <> wrote
    >>>> Rod Speed wrote
    >>>>> David Maynard <> wrote
    >>>>>> Folkert Rienstra wrote
    >>>>>>> David Maynard > wrote
    >>>>>>>> wrote
    >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>> 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, fuckwit.

    >>>>> 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, fuckwit.

    >> 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.
     
    Rod Speed, May 30, 2006
    #66
  7. Guest

    "Rod Speed" <> wrote:

    |> wrote:
    |>> "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
    |>
    |>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
     
    , May 30, 2006
    #67
  8. JAD Guest

    "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message
    news:xCBeg.33375$4H.25171@dukeread03...
    > Howdy!
    >
    > "JAD" <> wrote in message
    > news:Yiseg.429$...
    > >
    > > "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?


    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
    >
    >
     
    JAD, May 30, 2006
    #68
  9. "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message news:wkGeg.33425$4H.19174@dukeread03
    > 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.


    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
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 30, 2006
    #69
  10. "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message news:h6leg.33289$4H.26449@dukeread03
    > <> 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.


    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
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 30, 2006
    #70
  11. Rod Speed wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    >


    You're right. When it comes to 'bullshit' I'm unarmed.
     
    David Maynard, May 31, 2006
    #71
  12. "Folkert Rienstra" <> wrote in message
    news:447ca70f$0$14238$...
    > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message

    news:wkGeg.33425$4H.19174@dukeread03
    >
    > > 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.
    >


    I have a "mule" machine that I use for data recovery, virus
    scanning, et al.

    Its one FAT32 partition? Gets mapped as "E" in it, the other mule
    machine, or even on my girlfriend's laptop when I use a USB case to get
    access to it (a few large files that I really didn't want to waste a DVD for
    .... )

    > >
    > > 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.
    >


    I'd have to dig it out - but yes, I had mentioned that there are
    times that XP can enumerate just like 9X did. But the other methods DO take
    precedence ...

    RwP
     
    Ralph Wade Phillips, May 31, 2006
    #72
  13. Rod Speed wrote:

    > David Maynard <> wrote:
    >
    >>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>David Maynard <> wrote:


    <multiple snips to cut down the BS>

    >>>Nope, it aint persistence thats the problem with cloning.

    >
    >
    >>It most certainly is.

    >
    >
    > Nope.


    Yep.

    >
    >
    >>Why do you suppose none of this was an issue prior to drive letter persistence?

    >
    >
    > Its a coincidence.


    A "coincidence." <chuckle>

    > Its actually due to the way ntldr
    > works, nothing to do with drive letter pesistence.


    Well, it's certainly true that ntldr has to be able to find the partitions.
    Of course, so does everything else.


    > It cant be due to drive letter persistence if being careful
    > to ensure that XP cant see the original drive on the first
    > boot of the clone ensures that the clone boots fine.


    And why do you need to 'be careful it doesn't see the original drive'?
    Because the drive assignments are PERSISTENT as long as the partition is
    there to see (or manually assigned).

    I am pleased as punch your method, whatever it is, works 'every time' for
    you but the giant leap you then make that every possible method behaves the
    same is incorrect, as well as the second invalid leap that it isn't drive
    letter persistence.

    Depending on the program used to make the clone, and which options one uses
    in that program, the partition and drive IDs may, or may not, be preserved
    and they are not 'all the same'. For example, in Ghost 2003 the -FDSZ
    switch forces the disk signature zero while the -FDSP switch forces disk
    signature preserve and the reason for both switches is that the 'default'
    setting depends on how the clone is being made.

    When making a 'replacement' boot drive, however, the entire issue goes
    away, not even needing to know which does what, if one simply boots the
    cloning software and clones first, without having booted XP with the new
    drive installed, in which case it won't have seen the new hard drive and
    will not have created a drive signature for it prior to cloning. Then, as
    you suggest, boot the new drive alone so the old one doesn't come up as C:
    since that assignment is PERSISTENT as long as the partition is there to
    'see' (or is forced into reassignment by a collision).
     
    David Maynard, May 31, 2006
    #73
  14. Rod Speed Guest

    David Maynard <> wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> David Maynard <> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed wrote
    >>>> David Maynard <> wrote


    > <multiple snips to cut down the BS>


    You added more bullshit.

    >>>> Nope, it aint persistence thats the problem with cloning.


    >>> It most certainly is.


    >> Nope.


    > Yep.


    Nope.

    >>> Why do you suppose none of this was an issue prior to drive letter persistence?


    >> Its a coincidence.


    > A "coincidence." <chuckle>


    Having fun child ?

    >> Its actually due to the way ntldr works, nothing to do with drive letter pesistence.


    > Well, it's certainly true that ntldr has to be able to find the partitions. Of course,
    > so does everything else.


    Irrelevant to whether drive letter persistence is the problem.

    >> It cant be due to drive letter persistence if being careful
    >> to ensure that XP cant see the original drive on the first
    >> boot of the clone ensures that the clone boots fine.


    > And why do you need to 'be careful it doesn't see the original drive'?
    > Because the drive assignments are PERSISTENT as long as the partition is there to see
    > (or manually assigned).


    Wrong.

    > I am pleased as punch your method, whatever it is, works 'every time' for you but the
    > giant leap you then make that every possible method behaves the same is incorrect,


    YOU get to spell out when that approach doesnt work.

    THATS how it works.

    > as well as the second invalid leap that it isn't drive letter persistence.


    YOU made that claim.

    YOU get to substantiate that claim.

    THATS how it works.

    > Depending on the program used to make the clone, and which options one uses in that
    > program, the partition and drive IDs may, or may not, be preserved and they are not 'all
    > the same'.


    They are on that question of what XP can see on the first boot of the clone.

    > For example, in Ghost 2003 the -FDSZ switch forces the disk signature zero while
    > the -FDSP switch forces disk signature preserve and the reason for both switches is that
    > the 'default' setting depends on how the clone is being made.


    Irrelevant to whether drive persistence is the problem.

    > When making a 'replacement' boot drive, however, the entire issue goes away, not even
    > needing to know which does what, if one simply boots the cloning software and clones
    > first, without having booted XP with the new drive installed, in which case it won't
    > have seen the new hard drive and will not have created a drive signature for it prior to
    > cloning.


    Pity that will see the boot of the clone involve both drives
    if XP can see the original on the first boot after the clone.

    > Then, as you suggest, boot the new drive alone so the old one doesn't come up as C:
    > since that assignment is PERSISTENT as long as the partition is there to 'see' (or is
    > forced into reassignment by a collision).


    Pity that a complete sector by sector clone will mean that
    XP wont even notice that the drive has changed and so it
    has nothing to do with drive letter persistence at all.

    And there cant be any collision if only one drive
    is visible to XP on the first boot of the clone.

    And have fun explaining how come you can make the
    original drive visible to XP again after the first boot
    of the clone with impunity. Clearly drive letter persistence
    doesnt matter THEN.
     
    Rod Speed, May 31, 2006
    #74
  15. Rod Speed Guest

    David Maynard <> wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> 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.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > You're right. When it comes to 'bullshit' I'm unarmed.


    Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
     
    Rod Speed, May 31, 2006
    #75
  16. Rod Speed wrote:
    > David Maynard <> wrote:
    >
    >>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>
    >>>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.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>You're right. When it comes to 'bullshit' I'm unarmed.

    >
    >
    > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >
    >


    But I am able to make new whole sentences.
     
    David Maynard, May 31, 2006
    #76
  17. Rod Speed wrote:

    > David Maynard <> wrote
    >
    >>Rod Speed wrote
    >>
    >>>David Maynard <> wrote
    >>>
    >>>>Rod Speed wrote
    >>>>
    >>>>>David Maynard <> wrote

    >
    >
    >><multiple snips to cut down the BS>

    >
    >
    > You added more bullshit.


    Only in, unfortunately, serving as a vehicle for yours. A mistake I am not
    going to repeat.


    <snip of Rod Speed nonsense>
     
    David Maynard, May 31, 2006
    #77
  18. Rod Speed Guest

    David Maynard <> wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >
    >> David Maynard <> wrote
    >>
    >>> Rod Speed wrote
    >>>
    >>>> David Maynard <> wrote
    >>>>
    >>>>> Rod Speed wrote
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> David Maynard <> wrote

    >>
    >>
    >>> <multiple snips to cut down the BS>

    >>
    >>
    >> You added more bullshit.

    >
    > Only in, unfortunately, serving as a vehicle for yours. A mistake I
    > am not going to repeat.
    >
    >
    > <snip of Rod Speed nonsense>


    Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
     
    Rod Speed, May 31, 2006
    #78
  19. Rod Speed Guest

    David Maynard <> wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> David Maynard <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You're right. When it comes to 'bullshit' I'm unarmed.

    >>
    >>
    >> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > But I am able to make new whole sentences.


    Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
     
    Rod Speed, May 31, 2006
    #79
  20. John Doe Guest

    David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:

    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>David Maynard <nospam private.net> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>You're right. When it comes to 'bullshit' I'm unarmed.

    >>
    >>
    >> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > But I am able to make new whole sentences.


    Even different sentences for the exact same reply.






    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!sn-xt-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
    > From: David Maynard <nospam private.net>
    > Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,24hoursupport.helpdesk,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
    > Subject: Re: Formatting on drive wiped out when testing another drive
    > Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 00:40:55 -0500
    > Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
    > Message-ID: <127qasofjauam86 corp.supernews.com>
    > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
    > X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    > MIME-Version: 1.0
    > References: <1148537944.601035.122680 u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <3arb7290ght0cn61615rmgmgkpk3hc00fe 4ax.com> <4dmbroF1badrhU1 individual.net> <3s3c72p13ma72isucsub2qidn0q0kfr7i3 4ax.com> <127cgf37092bpd2 corp.supernews.com> <4477433e$1$14993$892e7fe2 authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <127f804bna6h21e corp.supernews.com> <4478dabe$0$79617$892e7fe2 authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <127l88mgdjt4bd1 corp.supernews.com> <4dvverF1cfmdvU1 individual.net> <127pqllt1qkv9b9 corp.supernews.com> <4e4l0fF1cuolvU1 individual.net>
    > In-Reply-To: <4e4l0fF1cuolvU1 individual.net>
    > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
    > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    > X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
    > Lines: 31
    > Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:466814 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:664887 microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware:291164 24hoursupport.helpdesk:1380459 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:372479
    >
     
    John Doe, May 31, 2006
    #80
    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:
    3,629
    Promajority
    Jan 31, 2005
  2. Keep getting my server wiped out.

    , Jan 26, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    512
    zenner
    Jan 27, 2004
  3. BIOS wiped out - is it a virus?

    , Jul 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,945
    John Vogel
    Jul 21, 2004
  4. Skippyboy
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    467
    Skippyboy
    May 15, 2007
  5. E. Scrooge
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    680
    E. Scrooge
    May 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page