Problem with system restore/recover.

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by R. Giggs., Oct 19, 2012.

  1. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    news:aaFgs.24846$4...
    >
    > "Paul" <> wrote in message
    > news:k5u39j$nfq$...
    >> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I am doing a chkdsk on the bad drive, past phase one on phase two but i
    >>> remember
    >>> that takes forever so I may have to abort. Don't think it reports error
    >>> untill the end
    >>> so probably best to abort and try something else.

    >>
    >> I wouldn't run CHKDSK on a disk that is demonstrating
    >> bad sectors.
    >>
    >> The only thing I would want to do with a bad disk,
    >> is get the data off it, as best as possible. When
    >> the data is copied, sector by sector to a good disk,
    >> then I'd run CHKDSK. If the disk is damaged, there's
    >> no sense doing a file by file copy, because there
    >> could be a lot of directory damage. Whereas a sector
    >> by sector copy, isn't trying to interpret the data.
    >> Only later, when you use other file/directory oriented
    >> tools, will you be finding out how really busted it is.
    >> But when a disk is sick, you try to get as many
    >> sectors of it off as possible.
    >>
    >> If I had to do that, I'd try something like ddrescue
    >> as mentioned here. The first pass of this, keeps track
    >> of what has been successfully copied. Subsequent passes
    >> are supposed to use the log file, to figure out what
    >> remains to be copied. In a sense, this is a "persistent"
    >> version of the regular "dd" copier.
    >>
    >> "Antonio Diaz's GNU ddrescue"
    >>
    >> http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Damaged_Hard_Disk
    >>
    >> If the regular version of "dd" copies the whole disk,
    >> and does not stop on an error, then you don't need
    >> ddrescue. But if "dd" can't finish, then you know
    >> there is damage causing actual CRC errors. And then,
    >> you need to work around them, and get the data on
    >> either side of the sector that is really damaged
    >> (no longer recoverable).
    >>
    >> *******
    >>
    >> I can find other references to such a tool:
    >>
    >> There is a windows version of the Diaz program here, but
    >> it's compiled under Cygwin. I don't know how easy that
    >> is to set up. You might want to read up on Cygwin first.
    >> When I use ported tools, I usually try for a gnuwin32
    >> version. ( http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html )
    >> This one is built under Cygwin.
    >>
    >> http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/gnu/gnu-win32/release/ddrescue/
    >>
    >> There is another program here, along similar lines.
    >> I don't know anything about this, because I just found it.
    >> It has a GUI, which is a major improvement compared
    >> to the ddrescue command line approach.
    >>
    >> http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm
    >>
    >> Paul
    >>

    >
    >
    > LOL!! I can't believe my eyes!!!
    >
    > I was just googling lost file, in particular "half folder missing" and I
    > came across this:-
    >
    > http://www.pchell.com/support/unhidefiles.shtml
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Which says:-
    > ===============
    > To Unhide files and folders that Windows Diagnostic, Windows XP Restore
    > and other malware hide
    >
    > For Windows XP
    >
    > 1) Click on Start, Run
    > 2) Type CMD and press Enter
    > 3) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
    >
    > CD \
    >
    > 4) Now the command prompt should show the root folder of the hard drive.
    > Most likely C:\
    > 5) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
    >
    > ATTRIB -H *.* /S /D
    >
    > This command will unhide the files that are currently hidden. Because the
    > important system files have a system attribute attached to them as well,
    > the above command will not work for them and they will be skipped and kept
    > hidden from prying eyes.
    >
    > This command will take some time, so dont be afraid if it takes anywhere
    > from a few minutes to half an hour to finish. What the command does is
    > simple. It removes the hidden attribute from all files on the hard drive.
    > The /S parameter tells it to search the current folder and all subfolders,
    > while the /D parameter processes tthe folders as well.
    >
    > 6) Type Exit and press Enter when the procedure is complete. Then reboot
    > your computer
    > ====================
    >
    > Anyhow, I didn't do all that I just ran CMD and went to G: where all the
    > missing files
    > were, then I typed DIR and all the files seem to be there!!!
    >
    > Do I didn't really do anything other than do a DIR on the damaged folder!?
    >
    > When I look again from windows all the files are listed as well!!
    >
    >
    > !!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!
    >


    Anyhow I may as well back them up whilst they are there, the I can try a
    boot
    on that drive, which should be interesting.
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 21, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. R. Giggs.

    Paul Guest

    R. Giggs. wrote:
    > "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    > news:aaFgs.24846$4...
    >> "Paul" <> wrote in message
    >> news:k5u39j$nfq$...
    >>> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I am doing a chkdsk on the bad drive, past phase one on phase two but i
    >>>> remember
    >>>> that takes forever so I may have to abort. Don't think it reports error
    >>>> untill the end
    >>>> so probably best to abort and try something else.
    >>> I wouldn't run CHKDSK on a disk that is demonstrating
    >>> bad sectors.
    >>>
    >>> The only thing I would want to do with a bad disk,
    >>> is get the data off it, as best as possible. When
    >>> the data is copied, sector by sector to a good disk,
    >>> then I'd run CHKDSK. If the disk is damaged, there's
    >>> no sense doing a file by file copy, because there
    >>> could be a lot of directory damage. Whereas a sector
    >>> by sector copy, isn't trying to interpret the data.
    >>> Only later, when you use other file/directory oriented
    >>> tools, will you be finding out how really busted it is.
    >>> But when a disk is sick, you try to get as many
    >>> sectors of it off as possible.
    >>>
    >>> If I had to do that, I'd try something like ddrescue
    >>> as mentioned here. The first pass of this, keeps track
    >>> of what has been successfully copied. Subsequent passes
    >>> are supposed to use the log file, to figure out what
    >>> remains to be copied. In a sense, this is a "persistent"
    >>> version of the regular "dd" copier.
    >>>
    >>> "Antonio Diaz's GNU ddrescue"
    >>>
    >>> http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Damaged_Hard_Disk
    >>>
    >>> If the regular version of "dd" copies the whole disk,
    >>> and does not stop on an error, then you don't need
    >>> ddrescue. But if "dd" can't finish, then you know
    >>> there is damage causing actual CRC errors. And then,
    >>> you need to work around them, and get the data on
    >>> either side of the sector that is really damaged
    >>> (no longer recoverable).
    >>>
    >>> *******
    >>>
    >>> I can find other references to such a tool:
    >>>
    >>> There is a windows version of the Diaz program here, but
    >>> it's compiled under Cygwin. I don't know how easy that
    >>> is to set up. You might want to read up on Cygwin first.
    >>> When I use ported tools, I usually try for a gnuwin32
    >>> version. ( http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html )
    >>> This one is built under Cygwin.
    >>>
    >>> http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/gnu/gnu-win32/release/ddrescue/
    >>>
    >>> There is another program here, along similar lines.
    >>> I don't know anything about this, because I just found it.
    >>> It has a GUI, which is a major improvement compared
    >>> to the ddrescue command line approach.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm
    >>>
    >>> Paul
    >>>

    >>
    >> LOL!! I can't believe my eyes!!!
    >>
    >> I was just googling lost file, in particular "half folder missing" and I
    >> came across this:-
    >>
    >> http://www.pchell.com/support/unhidefiles.shtml
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Which says:-
    >> ===============
    >> To Unhide files and folders that Windows Diagnostic, Windows XP Restore
    >> and other malware hide
    >>
    >> For Windows XP
    >>
    >> 1) Click on Start, Run
    >> 2) Type CMD and press Enter
    >> 3) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
    >>
    >> CD \
    >>
    >> 4) Now the command prompt should show the root folder of the hard drive.
    >> Most likely C:\
    >> 5) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
    >>
    >> ATTRIB -H *.* /S /D
    >>
    >> This command will unhide the files that are currently hidden. Because the
    >> important system files have a system attribute attached to them as well,
    >> the above command will not work for them and they will be skipped and kept
    >> hidden from prying eyes.
    >>
    >> This command will take some time, so dont be afraid if it takes anywhere
    >> from a few minutes to half an hour to finish. What the command does is
    >> simple. It removes the hidden attribute from all files on the hard drive.
    >> The /S parameter tells it to search the current folder and all subfolders,
    >> while the /D parameter processes tthe folders as well.
    >>
    >> 6) Type Exit and press Enter when the procedure is complete. Then reboot
    >> your computer
    >> ====================
    >>
    >> Anyhow, I didn't do all that I just ran CMD and went to G: where all the
    >> missing files
    >> were, then I typed DIR and all the files seem to be there!!!
    >>
    >> Do I didn't really do anything other than do a DIR on the damaged folder!?
    >>
    >> When I look again from windows all the files are listed as well!!
    >>
    >>
    >> !!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!
    >>

    >
    > Anyhow I may as well back them up whilst they are there, the I can try a
    > boot
    > on that drive, which should be interesting.


    There is actually a utility called "unhide.exe". It does the
    attribute change intelligently, only unhiding things that
    are supposed to be unhidden. if you apply that to a data-only
    partition, then it probably doesn't matter.

    http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic405109.html

    Again, I have no first hand experience using that program,
    or with the malware that caused it in the first place. You've
    probably already scanned the PC on occasion for malware, and
    would have located something like that.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 21, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. R. Giggs.

    Paul Guest

    R. Giggs. wrote:

    > Anyway I was going to get a new PC today but it looks like the choice is
    > severly limited.
    >
    > I was woried about being left without a PC,
    > However as this seems to be a physical problem I am less worried, if I have
    > problems with this drive the syetm restyore or recovery should work.
    >
    > Here is one of my best options for a PC
    > http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Base-Units/buy-HP-P6-2364EA-Computer-Base-Unit/124470
    >
    > It's HP and I could pick it up today I think, but it is unclear, it says
    > available in my area
    > but they may mean for delivery.
    > Small hard drive, 500gb and only 4gb memory. But you can upgrade those I
    > suppose.


    I think the base model of the HP P6, may be using the GPU
    inside the processor. The processor has its own graphics
    core. And by doing that, they can make a computer with
    no graphics card. The GPU inside the CPU is too weak for
    decent gaming, and would be similar to low-end laptop graphics.

    So you're paying £469.99, presumably for a computer with no
    good graphics card in it. The processor is worth about $182 USD.

    http://ark.intel.com/products/65509/Intel-Core-i5-3330-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz

    If all you do is web browser and email, then the base configuration
    would be fine. If you play Crysis 12 hours a day, that's not the
    right configuration for it, and you'll need to buy a separate
    video card to be happy with it. There's probably enough
    performance in that CPU to be happy with it. (Quad core at 3.2GHz,
    no Hyperthreading.)

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 21, 2012
    #23
  4. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:k5vd8q$m28$...
    > R. Giggs. wrote:
    >> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >> news:aaFgs.24846$4...
    >>> "Paul" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:k5u39j$nfq$...
    >>>> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I am doing a chkdsk on the bad drive, past phase one on phase two but
    >>>>> i remember
    >>>>> that takes forever so I may have to abort. Don't think it reports
    >>>>> error untill the end
    >>>>> so probably best to abort and try something else.
    >>>> I wouldn't run CHKDSK on a disk that is demonstrating
    >>>> bad sectors.
    >>>>
    >>>> The only thing I would want to do with a bad disk,
    >>>> is get the data off it, as best as possible. When
    >>>> the data is copied, sector by sector to a good disk,
    >>>> then I'd run CHKDSK. If the disk is damaged, there's
    >>>> no sense doing a file by file copy, because there
    >>>> could be a lot of directory damage. Whereas a sector
    >>>> by sector copy, isn't trying to interpret the data.
    >>>> Only later, when you use other file/directory oriented
    >>>> tools, will you be finding out how really busted it is.
    >>>> But when a disk is sick, you try to get as many
    >>>> sectors of it off as possible.
    >>>>
    >>>> If I had to do that, I'd try something like ddrescue
    >>>> as mentioned here. The first pass of this, keeps track
    >>>> of what has been successfully copied. Subsequent passes
    >>>> are supposed to use the log file, to figure out what
    >>>> remains to be copied. In a sense, this is a "persistent"
    >>>> version of the regular "dd" copier.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Antonio Diaz's GNU ddrescue"
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Damaged_Hard_Disk
    >>>>
    >>>> If the regular version of "dd" copies the whole disk,
    >>>> and does not stop on an error, then you don't need
    >>>> ddrescue. But if "dd" can't finish, then you know
    >>>> there is damage causing actual CRC errors. And then,
    >>>> you need to work around them, and get the data on
    >>>> either side of the sector that is really damaged
    >>>> (no longer recoverable).
    >>>>
    >>>> *******
    >>>>
    >>>> I can find other references to such a tool:
    >>>>
    >>>> There is a windows version of the Diaz program here, but
    >>>> it's compiled under Cygwin. I don't know how easy that
    >>>> is to set up. You might want to read up on Cygwin first.
    >>>> When I use ported tools, I usually try for a gnuwin32
    >>>> version. ( http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html )
    >>>> This one is built under Cygwin.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/gnu/gnu-win32/release/ddrescue/
    >>>>
    >>>> There is another program here, along similar lines.
    >>>> I don't know anything about this, because I just found it.
    >>>> It has a GUI, which is a major improvement compared
    >>>> to the ddrescue command line approach.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm
    >>>>
    >>>> Paul
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> LOL!! I can't believe my eyes!!!
    >>>
    >>> I was just googling lost file, in particular "half folder missing" and I
    >>> came across this:-
    >>>
    >>> http://www.pchell.com/support/unhidefiles.shtml
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Which says:-
    >>> ===============
    >>> To Unhide files and folders that Windows Diagnostic, Windows XP Restore
    >>> and other malware hide
    >>>
    >>> For Windows XP
    >>>
    >>> 1) Click on Start, Run
    >>> 2) Type CMD and press Enter
    >>> 3) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
    >>>
    >>> CD \
    >>>
    >>> 4) Now the command prompt should show the root folder of the hard drive.
    >>> Most likely C:\
    >>> 5) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
    >>>
    >>> ATTRIB -H *.* /S /D
    >>>
    >>> This command will unhide the files that are currently hidden. Because
    >>> the important system files have a system attribute attached to them as
    >>> well, the above command will not work for them and they will be skipped
    >>> and kept hidden from prying eyes.
    >>>
    >>> This command will take some time, so dont be afraid if it takes anywhere
    >>> from a few minutes to half an hour to finish. What the command does is
    >>> simple. It removes the hidden attribute from all files on the hard
    >>> drive. The /S parameter tells it to search the current folder and all
    >>> subfolders, while the /D parameter processes tthe folders as well.
    >>>
    >>> 6) Type Exit and press Enter when the procedure is complete. Then reboot
    >>> your computer
    >>> ====================
    >>>
    >>> Anyhow, I didn't do all that I just ran CMD and went to G: where all the
    >>> missing files
    >>> were, then I typed DIR and all the files seem to be there!!!
    >>>
    >>> Do I didn't really do anything other than do a DIR on the damaged
    >>> folder!?
    >>>
    >>> When I look again from windows all the files are listed as well!!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> !!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!
    >>>

    >>
    >> Anyhow I may as well back them up whilst they are there, the I can try a
    >> boot
    >> on that drive, which should be interesting.

    >
    > There is actually a utility called "unhide.exe". It does the
    > attribute change intelligently, only unhiding things that
    > are supposed to be unhidden. if you apply that to a data-only
    > partition, then it probably doesn't matter.
    >
    > http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic405109.html
    >
    > Again, I have no first hand experience using that program,
    > or with the malware that caused it in the first place. You've
    > probably already scanned the PC on occasion for malware, and
    > would have located something like that.
    >
    > Paul
    >
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 21, 2012
    #24
  5. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    news:XgHgs.19545$4...
    >
    > "Paul" <> wrote in message
    > news:k5vd8q$m28$...
    >> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >>> news:aaFgs.24846$4...
    >>>> "Paul" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:k5u39j$nfq$...
    >>>>> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I am doing a chkdsk on the bad drive, past phase one on phase two but
    >>>>>> i remember
    >>>>>> that takes forever so I may have to abort. Don't think it reports
    >>>>>> error untill the end
    >>>>>> so probably best to abort and try something else.
    >>>>> I wouldn't run CHKDSK on a disk that is demonstrating
    >>>>> bad sectors.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The only thing I would want to do with a bad disk,
    >>>>> is get the data off it, as best as possible. When
    >>>>> the data is copied, sector by sector to a good disk,
    >>>>> then I'd run CHKDSK. If the disk is damaged, there's
    >>>>> no sense doing a file by file copy, because there
    >>>>> could be a lot of directory damage. Whereas a sector
    >>>>> by sector copy, isn't trying to interpret the data.
    >>>>> Only later, when you use other file/directory oriented
    >>>>> tools, will you be finding out how really busted it is.
    >>>>> But when a disk is sick, you try to get as many
    >>>>> sectors of it off as possible.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If I had to do that, I'd try something like ddrescue
    >>>>> as mentioned here. The first pass of this, keeps track
    >>>>> of what has been successfully copied. Subsequent passes
    >>>>> are supposed to use the log file, to figure out what
    >>>>> remains to be copied. In a sense, this is a "persistent"
    >>>>> version of the regular "dd" copier.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Antonio Diaz's GNU ddrescue"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Damaged_Hard_Disk
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If the regular version of "dd" copies the whole disk,
    >>>>> and does not stop on an error, then you don't need
    >>>>> ddrescue. But if "dd" can't finish, then you know
    >>>>> there is damage causing actual CRC errors. And then,
    >>>>> you need to work around them, and get the data on
    >>>>> either side of the sector that is really damaged
    >>>>> (no longer recoverable).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> *******
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I can find other references to such a tool:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There is a windows version of the Diaz program here, but
    >>>>> it's compiled under Cygwin. I don't know how easy that
    >>>>> is to set up. You might want to read up on Cygwin first.
    >>>>> When I use ported tools, I usually try for a gnuwin32
    >>>>> version. ( http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html )
    >>>>> This one is built under Cygwin.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/gnu/gnu-win32/release/ddrescue/
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There is another program here, along similar lines.
    >>>>> I don't know anything about this, because I just found it.
    >>>>> It has a GUI, which is a major improvement compared
    >>>>> to the ddrescue command line approach.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Paul
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> LOL!! I can't believe my eyes!!!
    >>>>
    >>>> I was just googling lost file, in particular "half folder missing" and
    >>>> I came across this:-
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.pchell.com/support/unhidefiles.shtml
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Which says:-
    >>>> ===============
    >>>> To Unhide files and folders that Windows Diagnostic, Windows XP Restore
    >>>> and other malware hide
    >>>>
    >>>> For Windows XP
    >>>>
    >>>> 1) Click on Start, Run
    >>>> 2) Type CMD and press Enter
    >>>> 3) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
    >>>>
    >>>> CD \
    >>>>
    >>>> 4) Now the command prompt should show the root folder of the hard
    >>>> drive. Most likely C:\
    >>>> 5) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
    >>>>
    >>>> ATTRIB -H *.* /S /D
    >>>>
    >>>> This command will unhide the files that are currently hidden. Because
    >>>> the important system files have a system attribute attached to them as
    >>>> well, the above command will not work for them and they will be skipped
    >>>> and kept hidden from prying eyes.
    >>>>
    >>>> This command will take some time, so dont be afraid if it takes
    >>>> anywhere from a few minutes to half an hour to finish. What the command
    >>>> does is simple. It removes the hidden attribute from all files on the
    >>>> hard drive. The /S parameter tells it to search the current folder and
    >>>> all subfolders, while the /D parameter processes tthe folders as well.
    >>>>
    >>>> 6) Type Exit and press Enter when the procedure is complete. Then
    >>>> reboot your computer
    >>>> ====================
    >>>>
    >>>> Anyhow, I didn't do all that I just ran CMD and went to G: where all
    >>>> the missing files
    >>>> were, then I typed DIR and all the files seem to be there!!!
    >>>>
    >>>> Do I didn't really do anything other than do a DIR on the damaged
    >>>> folder!?
    >>>>
    >>>> When I look again from windows all the files are listed as well!!
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> !!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Anyhow I may as well back them up whilst they are there, the I can try a
    >>> boot
    >>> on that drive, which should be interesting.

    >>
    >> There is actually a utility called "unhide.exe". It does the
    >> attribute change intelligently, only unhiding things that
    >> are supposed to be unhidden. if you apply that to a data-only
    >> partition, then it probably doesn't matter.
    >>
    >> http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic405109.html
    >>
    >> Again, I have no first hand experience using that program,
    >> or with the malware that caused it in the first place. You've
    >> probably already scanned the PC on occasion for malware, and
    >> would have located something like that.
    >>
    >> Paul
    >>

    >
    >


    I thought I had already replied to this but the reply dos not seem to be
    there.
    I again had problems trying to boot with the bad drive connected, even after
    disconnecting
    I got the same error mesage, maybe I had not powered down long enough to
    to clear the memory and it remembered the problem.
    Yeterday I powered off again for longer and booted on one goood driver
    briefly then rebooted
    with both connected and it boooted with both drives again.

    Iam just on the one drive now and I might have problemss
    getting it to boot with both again, but I will try the same procedure.
    It seems to follow a different boot up path probably because the bios tests
    detect the problem,
    and then the bios is not cleared because it still how power form the
    capacitors which have not
    run down yet.

    But rither way it does not look like itis going to be prectical to use that
    driver again.
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 21, 2012
    #25
  6. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:k5vdi7$nh0$...
    > R. Giggs. wrote:
    >
    >> Anyway I was going to get a new PC today but it looks like the choice is
    >> severly limited.
    >>
    >> I was woried about being left without a PC,
    >> However as this seems to be a physical problem I am less worried, if I
    >> have
    >> problems with this drive the syetm restyore or recovery should work.
    >>
    >> Here is one of my best options for a PC
    >> http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Base-Units/buy-HP-P6-2364EA-Computer-Base-Unit/124470
    >>
    >> It's HP and I could pick it up today I think, but it is unclear, it says
    >> available in my area
    >> but they may mean for delivery.
    >> Small hard drive, 500gb and only 4gb memory. But you can upgrade those I
    >> suppose.

    >
    > I think the base model of the HP P6, may be using the GPU
    > inside the processor. The processor has its own graphics
    > core. And by doing that, they can make a computer with
    > no graphics card. The GPU inside the CPU is too weak for
    > decent gaming, and would be similar to low-end laptop graphics.
    >
    > So you're paying £469.99, presumably for a computer with no
    > good graphics card in it. The processor is worth about $182 USD.




    I think it is the ACER there which has no graphics card, the HP one does
    http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Base-Units/buy-ACER-AXC-600-Computer-Base-Unit/123800


    THe ACER above has twice the memory and hard drive for just £20 more, howver
    if you expand
    the specification you see it is has no graphics card.
    >
    > http://ark.intel.com/products/65509/Intel-Core-i5-3330-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz
    >
    > If all you do is web browser and email, then the base configuration
    > would be fine. If you play Crysis 12 hours a day, that's not the
    > right configuration for it, and you'll need to buy a separate
    > video card to be happy with it. There's probably enough
    > performance in that CPU to be happy with it. (Quad core at 3.2GHz,
    > no Hyperthreading.)


    I don't really do any gaming at all so maybe I would be better off with the
    ACER
    which had more storage and memory.

    I am always inclided to go for the best cpu.
    The next best there costs £849.99 which is basically another £400 which is
    almost
    double the price and not great value for money.



    >
    > Paul
    >
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 21, 2012
    #26
  7. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    >> I think the base model of the HP P6, may be using the GPU
    >> inside the processor. The processor has its own graphics
    >> core. And by doing that, they can make a computer with
    >> no graphics card. The GPU inside the CPU is too weak for
    >> decent gaming, and would be similar to low-end laptop graphics.
    >>
    >> So you're paying £469.99, presumably for a computer with no
    >> good graphics card in it. The processor is worth about $182 USD.

    >
    >
    >
    > I think it is the ACER there which has no graphics card, the HP one does
    > http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Base-Units/buy-ACER-AXC-600-Computer-Base-Unit/123800
    >
    >
    > THe ACER above has twice the memory and hard drive for just £20 more,
    > howver if you expand
    > the specification you see it is has no graphics card.
    >>
    >> http://ark.intel.com/products/65509/Intel-Core-i5-3330-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz
    >>
    >> If all you do is web browser and email, then the base configuration
    >> would be fine. If you play Crysis 12 hours a day, that's not the
    >> right configuration for it, and you'll need to buy a separate
    >> video card to be happy with it. There's probably enough
    >> performance in that CPU to be happy with it. (Quad core at 3.2GHz,
    >> no Hyperthreading.)

    >
    > I don't really do any gaming at all so maybe I would be better off with
    > the ACER
    > which had more storage and memory.
    >
    > I am always inclided to go for the best cpu.
    > The next best there costs £849.99 which is basically another £400 which
    > is almost
    > double the price and not great value for money.
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Paul
    >>

    >
    >
    >

    http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5087152.htm#pdpFullProductInformation


    Another one here odd thing is it is descrived as a duel core i5 but as far
    as I am aware
    i5 means quad core.

    and an i7 here £535.99 but I think that only has onboard graphics.
    http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/018497.htm#pdpFullProductInformation



    However this one seems to
    http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/018501.htm#pdpFullProductInformation

    or at least I thought so, but I think I have been mistaken about some of the
    descriptions.

    It says it has Intell HD 2000 , which I thoght was a graphics card but is
    realy onboard graphics.
    I think I was confused about that regarding the earlier HP machine I linked
    here. But then again perhaps not,
    the terminology is a bit confusing there is intel hd 2000 which i thnk is
    onboard and intel hd 1.7 GB
    which is a graphics cars.

    I have not looked at specs for a long time so I am unfamliar with a lot of
    stuff, also I am not sure
    if some of the shops know what they are selling or make mistakes as ARGOs
    desribes a dual core i5
    which I think is a mistake. ARGO are not an specialist electricall, just a
    general catalog type box shifting store
    but usually cheap. I have never heard of the Zoostormm brand they sell, it
    sounds really cheap


    This one however ha a graphics card and is i7
    http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/018510.htm
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 21, 2012
    #27
  8. R. Giggs.

    Paul Guest

    R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>> I think the base model of the HP P6, may be using the GPU
    >>> inside the processor. The processor has its own graphics
    >>> core. And by doing that, they can make a computer with
    >>> no graphics card. The GPU inside the CPU is too weak for
    >>> decent gaming, and would be similar to low-end laptop graphics.
    >>>
    >>> So you're paying £469.99, presumably for a computer with no
    >>> good graphics card in it. The processor is worth about $182 USD.

    >>
    >>
    >> I think it is the ACER there which has no graphics card, the HP one does
    >> http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Base-Units/buy-ACER-AXC-600-Computer-Base-Unit/123800
    >>
    >>
    >> THe ACER above has twice the memory and hard drive for just £20 more,
    >> howver if you expand
    >> the specification you see it is has no graphics card.
    >>> http://ark.intel.com/products/65509/Intel-Core-i5-3330-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz
    >>>
    >>> If all you do is web browser and email, then the base configuration
    >>> would be fine. If you play Crysis 12 hours a day, that's not the
    >>> right configuration for it, and you'll need to buy a separate
    >>> video card to be happy with it. There's probably enough
    >>> performance in that CPU to be happy with it. (Quad core at 3.2GHz,
    >>> no Hyperthreading.)

    >> I don't really do any gaming at all so maybe I would be better off with
    >> the ACER
    >> which had more storage and memory.
    >>
    >> I am always inclided to go for the best cpu.
    >> The next best there costs £849.99 which is basically another £400 which
    >> is almost
    >> double the price and not great value for money.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Paul
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    > http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5087152.htm#pdpFullProductInformation
    >
    >
    > Another one here odd thing is it is descrived as a duel core i5 but as far
    > as I am aware
    > i5 means quad core.
    >
    > and an i7 here £535.99 but I think that only has onboard graphics.
    > http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/018497.htm#pdpFullProductInformation
    >
    >
    >
    > However this one seems to
    > http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/018501.htm#pdpFullProductInformation
    >
    > or at least I thought so, but I think I have been mistaken about some of the
    > descriptions.
    >
    > It says it has Intell HD 2000 , which I thoght was a graphics card but is
    > realy onboard graphics.
    > I think I was confused about that regarding the earlier HP machine I linked
    > here. But then again perhaps not,
    > the terminology is a bit confusing there is intel hd 2000 which i thnk is
    > onboard and intel hd 1.7 GB
    > which is a graphics cars.
    >
    > I have not looked at specs for a long time so I am unfamliar with a lot of
    > stuff, also I am not sure
    > if some of the shops know what they are selling or make mistakes as ARGOs
    > desribes a dual core i5
    > which I think is a mistake. ARGO are not an specialist electricall, just a
    > general catalog type box shifting store
    > but usually cheap. I have never heard of the Zoostormm brand they sell, it
    > sounds really cheap
    >
    >
    > This one however ha a graphics card and is i7
    > http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/018510.htm


    Your last link, says "GT520" and that's a separate video card.
    You can get some idea of the performance level, just from the price
    of such a card. Brand new, the price of that video card is $50,
    so it's not a great gamer card. What it gives you, is the
    ability to play with software programs that use CUDA, but
    the card would not be a powerhouse. It's probably slightly
    better than an Intel built-in graphics solution.

    In the charts here, the highest end cards are 14x strong
    than the GT520 :)

    http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce GT 520

    You can look up Intel processor model numbers on ark.intel.com,
    to find out how many cores and threads, and what clock speeds
    are supported.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 22, 2012
    #28
  9. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:k621ij$mv4$...
    > R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>>> I think the base model of the HP P6, may be using the GPU
    >>>> inside the processor. The processor has its own graphics
    >>>> core. And by doing that, they can make a computer with
    >>>> no graphics card. The GPU inside the CPU is too weak for
    >>>> decent gaming, and would be similar to low-end laptop graphics.
    >>>>
    >>>> So you're paying £469.99, presumably for a computer with no
    >>>> good graphics card in it. The processor is worth about $182 USD.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I think it is the ACER there which has no graphics card, the HP one does
    >>> http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Base-Units/buy-ACER-AXC-600-Computer-Base-Unit/123800
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> THe ACER above has twice the memory and hard drive for just £20 more,
    >>> howver if you expand
    >>> the specification you see it is has no graphics card.
    >>>> http://ark.intel.com/products/65509/Intel-Core-i5-3330-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz
    >>>>
    >>>> If all you do is web browser and email, then the base configuration
    >>>> would be fine. If you play Crysis 12 hours a day, that's not the
    >>>> right configuration for it, and you'll need to buy a separate
    >>>> video card to be happy with it. There's probably enough
    >>>> performance in that CPU to be happy with it. (Quad core at 3.2GHz,
    >>>> no Hyperthreading.)
    >>> I don't really do any gaming at all so maybe I would be better off with
    >>> the ACER
    >>> which had more storage and memory.
    >>>
    >>> I am always inclided to go for the best cpu.
    >>> The next best there costs £849.99 which is basically another £400 which
    >>> is almost
    >>> double the price and not great value for money.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Paul
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5087152.htm#pdpFullProductInformation
    >>
    >>
    >> Another one here odd thing is it is descrived as a duel core i5 but as
    >> far as I am aware
    >> i5 means quad core.
    >>
    >> and an i7 here £535.99 but I think that only has onboard graphics.
    >> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/018497.htm#pdpFullProductInformation
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> However this one seems to
    >> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/018501.htm#pdpFullProductInformation
    >>
    >> or at least I thought so, but I think I have been mistaken about some of
    >> the descriptions.
    >>
    >> It says it has Intell HD 2000 , which I thoght was a graphics card but
    >> is realy onboard graphics.
    >> I think I was confused about that regarding the earlier HP machine I
    >> linked here. But then again perhaps not,
    >> the terminology is a bit confusing there is intel hd 2000 which i thnk is
    >> onboard and intel hd 1.7 GB
    >> which is a graphics cars.
    >>
    >> I have not looked at specs for a long time so I am unfamliar with a lot
    >> of stuff, also I am not sure
    >> if some of the shops know what they are selling or make mistakes as
    >> ARGOs desribes a dual core i5
    >> which I think is a mistake. ARGO are not an specialist electricall, just
    >> a general catalog type box shifting store
    >> but usually cheap. I have never heard of the Zoostormm brand they sell,
    >> it sounds really cheap
    >>
    >>
    >> This one however ha a graphics card and is i7
    >> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/018510.htm

    >
    > Your last link, says "GT520" and that's a separate video card.
    > You can get some idea of the performance level, just from the price
    > of such a card. Brand new, the price of that video card is $50,
    > so it's not a great gamer card. What it gives you, is the
    > ability to play with software programs that use CUDA, but
    > the card would not be a powerhouse. It's probably slightly
    > better than an Intel built-in graphics solution.
    >
    > In the charts here, the highest end cards are 14x strong
    > than the GT520 :)
    >
    > http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce GT 520


    My currrent card a
    Radeon HD 3450 had a passmark of 130 against 382 for theGT520, so that
    would
    be 3 times faster than mine, which is a pretty basic card, the fact it had
    no fan was a bonus for me
    as my PC was anoisey enough, althougth I cured that by cleaning out my
    heatsink, probably saved
    a fair bit on electricity too going by the noise it generated.
    I certainly do not have a probllem with graphics as far as I am aware, I
    don't play any grapical games.
    My only real concern would be if the lack of a card slowed the PC.
    Actually I think the real reason I got a card for my PC was to enable me to
    use two monitors, so
    that is a consideraton, however I could use the card from this machine for
    that if required.


    I could not find a passmark for the inbuilt intel hd2000 graphics but
    comparing to
    to cards it was compared to which I could find I estimate if would have a
    passmark of 260, so
    there does not seem much point paying extra for something just 50% faster,
    unless perhaps
    it allows you to use two monitors, I think there are 2 port on the on board
    intel hd 2000 machines
    according to picture I saw but I could be wrong on that, might have been a
    machine with a card in it.

    >
    > You can look up Intel processor model numbers on ark.intel.com,
    > to find out how many cores and threads, and what clock speeds
    > are supported.
    >
    > Paul
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 22, 2012
    #29
  10. R. Giggs.

    Paul Guest

    R. Giggs. wrote:

    >
    > My currrent card a
    > Radeon HD 3450 had a passmark of 130 against 382 for theGT520, so that
    > would
    > be 3 times faster than mine, which is a pretty basic card, the fact it had
    > no fan was a bonus for me
    > as my PC was anoisey enough, althougth I cured that by cleaning out my
    > heatsink, probably saved
    > a fair bit on electricity too going by the noise it generated.
    > I certainly do not have a probllem with graphics as far as I am aware, I
    > don't play any grapical games.
    > My only real concern would be if the lack of a card slowed the PC.
    > Actually I think the real reason I got a card for my PC was to enable me to
    > use two monitors, so
    > that is a consideraton, however I could use the card from this machine for
    > that if required.
    >
    >
    > I could not find a passmark for the inbuilt intel hd2000 graphics but
    > comparing to
    > to cards it was compared to which I could find I estimate if would have a
    > passmark of 260, so
    > there does not seem much point paying extra for something just 50% faster,
    > unless perhaps
    > it allows you to use two monitors, I think there are 2 port on the on board
    > intel hd 2000 machines
    > according to picture I saw but I could be wrong on that, might have been a
    > machine with a card in it.
    >

    <<snip>>

    The chart on that site, does have some entries for the Intel HD series.
    But the labels on the chart, almost looks like they were entered by the
    users, rather than being read straight from Device Manager by the
    benchmark tool.

    http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php

    Intel HD >a 4000 461
    Intel HD 200 320
    Intel HD 3000 331
    Intel HD 4000 525

    The HD 4000 may be stronger than the GT 520, but there might
    still be reasons to own the GT 520 instead. The software/driver
    side of Intel stuff, while it's improved, just doesn't keep up
    with the other graphics companies.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 22, 2012
    #30
  11. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:k62ps9$qvu$...
    > R. Giggs. wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> My currrent card a
    >> Radeon HD 3450 had a passmark of 130 against 382 for theGT520, so that
    >> would
    >> be 3 times faster than mine, which is a pretty basic card, the fact it
    >> had no fan was a bonus for me
    >> as my PC was anoisey enough, althougth I cured that by cleaning out my
    >> heatsink, probably saved
    >> a fair bit on electricity too going by the noise it generated.
    >> I certainly do not have a probllem with graphics as far as I am aware, I
    >> don't play any grapical games.
    >> My only real concern would be if the lack of a card slowed the PC.
    >> Actually I think the real reason I got a card for my PC was to enable me
    >> to use two monitors, so
    >> that is a consideraton, however I could use the card from this machine
    >> for that if required.
    >>
    >>
    >> I could not find a passmark for the inbuilt intel hd2000 graphics but
    >> comparing to
    >> to cards it was compared to which I could find I estimate if would have a
    >> passmark of 260, so
    >> there does not seem much point paying extra for something just 50%
    >> faster, unless perhaps
    >> it allows you to use two monitors, I think there are 2 port on the on
    >> board intel hd 2000 machines
    >> according to picture I saw but I could be wrong on that, might have been
    >> a machine with a card in it.
    >>

    > <<snip>>
    >
    > The chart on that site, does have some entries for the Intel HD series.
    > But the labels on the chart, almost looks like they were entered by the
    > users, rather than being read straight from Device Manager by the
    > benchmark tool.
    >
    > http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php
    >
    > Intel HD >a 4000 461
    > Intel HD 200 320
    > Intel HD 3000 331
    > Intel HD 4000 525
    >
    > The HD 4000 may be stronger than the GT 520, but there might
    > still be reasons to own the GT 520 instead. The software/driver
    > side of Intel stuff, while it's improved, just doesn't keep up
    > with the other graphics companies.
    >
    > Paul
    >


    Thanks for that, that could come in useful, one of the problems is often the
    graphics
    are not clearly specified if indeed thay are specified at all.
    This is another machine I have been looking, I was quite surprised to find
    it as the store is
    a department type store, many such store and indeed other retailed have
    stopped stocking
    computers at all so my by in store option are rather restricted.
    Even he so called specialist computer stores have a very limited range
    available, howver
    for some reason they like to advestise computers they cannot actually
    suppply!!
    This was the machine.

    http://www.johnlewis.com/231496996/Product.aspx

    I was quite surprise to find an i7 for under £600 there as it is a store
    renown for good service
    ( most staff are shareholders) and thus tends to be a bit more expensive
    than the box shifters.
    Hard to find a detailed specification for it though.

    Mean while I cleared data off my 500gb extrenal drive withthe idea of
    replacing the failed drive with
    it, howver when I opened it up I found it i snot SATA but PATA so I think
    I'd neeed an adapter.

    I also wanted to put the failed drive inthe housing to see if I could have a
    look at it that way, just
    curious to investigate it;s odd problems.


    I found the SMART data I took from it from a coupleof months ago, I don't
    think it
    indicates any problems but I am not good at understanding it, I do not it
    says error retreiving
    SMART data at the end though.

    *** DiskCheckup V3.1 Build: 1005 Report ***

    SysInfo DLL Version:
    SysInfo v1.0 Build: 1028
    Time of export:
    21:59:30 30-Aug-2012

    Device information:
    Device ID: 0
    Interface: ATA
    Device Capacity: 238472
    MB
    Serial Number:
    S08BJ10L440410
    Model Number:
    SAMSUNG SP2514N
    Firmware Revision:
    VF900-33
    Partitions:
    C: 232329 MB
    D: 6130 MB

    ATA information:

    Disk geometry:
    Cylinders: 32301
    Tracks/Cylinder: 240
    Sectors/Track: 63
    Bytes/Sector: 512
    Total disk sectors:
    488397168
    Logical sector size: 512
    Physical sector size: 512
    Media rotation rate: N/A
    Buffer size: 8192
    KB
    ECC size: 4
    Bytes

    Standards compliance:
    ATA8-ACS Supported: No
    ATA/ATAPI-7 Supported: Yes
    ATA/ATAPI-6 Supported: Yes
    ATA/ATAPI-5 Supported: Yes
    ATA/ATAPI-4 Supported: Yes
    World Wide ID:
    50000F001B440410

    Feature support:
    SMART supported: Yes
    SMART enabled: Yes
    SMART self-test supported: Yes
    SMART error log supported: Yes
    LBA supported: Yes
    IORDY supported: Yes
    CFast supported: No
    DMA supported: Yes
    Maximum Multiword DMA mode supported: 2
    Multiword DMA selected: None
    Maximum UltraDMA mode supported: 6
    UltraDMA selected: 5
    Maximum PIO mode supported: 4
    SATA Compliance: No
    Trusted Computing supported: No
    Host Protected Area (HPA) supported: Yes
    Read look-ahead supported: Yes
    Read look-ahead enabled: Yes
    Write cache supported: Yes
    Write cache enabled: Yes
    Power management supported: Yes
    Security mode supported: Yes
    Security mode enabled: No
    Device Configuration Overlay (DCO) supported: Yes
    48bit Addressing supported: Yes
    Auto Acoustic Managment (AAM) supported: Yes
    Auto Acoustic Managment (AAM) enabled: Yes
    Recommended AAM level:
    Maximum performance
    Current AAM level:
    Minimum acoustic emanation level
    Power-up in Standby (PUIS) supported: Yes
    Power-up in Standby (PUIS) enabled: No
    Advanced Power Management (APM) supported: No
    CompactFlash Association (CFA) supported: No
    General Purpose Logging (GPL) supported: Yes
    Streaming supported: Yes
    Media card pass through supported: No
    Extended power conditions supported: No
    Extended status reporting supported: No
    Write-read-verify supported: No
    Free-fall control supported: No
    TRIM command supported: No
    SCT command transport supported: No
    NV Cache enabled: No
    NV Cache Power Management supported: No

    SMART ATTRIBUTES:
    ID Description Status Value Worst
    Threshold Raw Value TEC
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 Raw Read Error Rate OK 100 100 51
    0 N.A.
    3 Spin Up Time OK 100 100 25
    6208 N.A.
    4 Start/Stop Count OK 92 92 0
    8501 N.A.
    5 Reallocated Sector Count OK 253 253 10
    0 N.A.
    7 Seek Error Rate OK 253 253 51
    0 N.A.
    8 Seek Time Performance OK 253 253 15
    0 N.A.
    9 Power On Time OK 100 100 0
    34391 N.A.
    10 Spin Retry Count OK 253 253 51
    0 N.A.
    11 Calibration Retry Count OK 253 2 0
    0 N.A.
    12 Power Cycle Count OK 96 96 0
    4149 N.A.
    190 Temperature Difference from 100 OK 127 100 0
    37 N.A.
    194 Temperature OK 127 100 0
    37 C N.A.
    195 Hardware ECC Recovered OK 100 100 0
    9971601 N.A.
    196 Reallocation Event Count OK 253 253 0
    0 N.A.
    197 Current Pending Sector Count OK 253 253 0
    0 N.A.
    198 Uncorrectable Sector Count OK 253 253 0
    0 N.A.
    199 UltraDMA CRC Error Count OK 200 200 0
    0 N.A.
    200 Write Error Count OK 100 100 0
    0 N.A.
    201 Off Track Errors OK 100 100 0
    0 N.A.

    SMART HISTORY:
    Error retrieving history
    ==========================================


    Anyhow I an reluctant to boot with it on as a slave drive as it is hard to
    boot, it detects the drive problem
    and report them but I should still be able to continue to boot up on the
    good master drive but that seem
    to just hang for ever when I press F1 to continue, or indeed F2 to quit.

    The only way I can get it to boot up is to press ESC at boot-up to go to a
    boot menu
    which allows me to select which drive to boot from, however that does not
    allways work
    and sometimes has led to it rebooting when booting up on my good drive which
    puts me off
    messing around with it as I have no backup, really, however I did select
    boot from last known good
    configuration, but that failed too, but then I just did a straight boot and
    it booted OK.
    Hence I don't like to mess too much with it, but curiousity sometimes gets
    the better of me.

    I had also been looking for at another drive for it, I though I might be
    able to pick up
    a relatively small capacity one cheaply, but again little choice, I can get
    500gb for £60
    which seems poor value when for another £20 I can get 2TB!!!
    Error retrieving history

    Error retrieving history

    Error retrieving history

    Error retrieving history

    Error retrieving history

    Error retrieving history

    Error retrieving history

    Error retrieving history

    Error retrieving history

    Error retrieving history

    Error retrieving history

    Error retrieving history
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 25, 2012
    #31
  12. R. Giggs.

    Paul Guest

    R. Giggs. wrote:

    >
    > Thanks for that, that could come in useful, one of the problems is often the
    > graphics
    > are not clearly specified if indeed thay are specified at all.
    > This is another machine I have been looking, I was quite surprised to find
    > it as the store is
    > a department type store, many such store and indeed other retailed have
    > stopped stocking
    > computers at all so my by in store option are rather restricted.
    > Even he so called specialist computer stores have a very limited range
    > available, howver
    > for some reason they like to advestise computers they cannot actually
    > suppply!!
    > This was the machine.
    >
    > http://www.johnlewis.com/231496996/Product.aspx
    >
    > I was quite surprise to find an i7 for under £600 there as it is a store
    > renown for good service
    > ( most staff are shareholders) and thus tends to be a bit more expensive
    > than the box shifters.
    > Hard to find a detailed specification for it though.


    That machine appeared on Amazon about a year ago, judging by
    the date of the reviews. It could well be out of stock by now.
    Sometimes, machines like this appear, because they're clearance
    items. Companies acquire clearance items from the manufacturer,
    a bulk lot of them, and when they're gone, that's it.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-rev.../275-4881420-1501401?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

    It's worth reading the reviews on that page as well. One customer
    finds the case is too small. Hard to fit a video card in it.

    >
    > I found the SMART data I took from it from a coupleof months ago, I don't
    > think it
    > indicates any problems but I am not good at understanding it, I do not it
    > says error retreiving
    > SMART data at the end though.
    >
    > *** DiskCheckup V3.1 Build: 1005 Report ***
    >
    > Model Number: SAMSUNG SP2514N
    > Firmware Revision: VF900-33


    > SMART ATTRIBUTES:
    > ID Description Status Value Worst Threshold Raw Value
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 5 Reallocated Sector Count OK 253 253 10 0
    > 197 Current Pending Sector Count OK 253 253 0 0


    Both raw values there are "0", so it's fine. I use those two
    as "danger" indicators. The smart readout tool usually colors
    entries that are abnormal, but sometimes the warning shown
    is not an important one. But those two hint at the condition
    of the platters and surfaces.

    >
    > Anyhow I an reluctant to boot with it on as a slave drive as it is hard to
    > boot, it detects the drive problem
    > and report them but I should still be able to continue to boot up on the
    > good master drive but that seem
    > to just hang for ever when I press F1 to continue, or indeed F2 to quit.
    >
    > The only way I can get it to boot up is to press ESC at boot-up to go to a
    > boot menu
    > which allows me to select which drive to boot from, however that does not
    > allways work
    > and sometimes has led to it rebooting when booting up on my good drive which
    > puts me off
    > messing around with it as I have no backup, really, however I did select
    > boot from last known good
    > configuration, but that failed too, but then I just did a straight boot and
    > it booted OK.
    > Hence I don't like to mess too much with it, but curiousity sometimes gets
    > the better of me.
    >
    > I had also been looking for at another drive for it, I though I might be
    > able to pick up
    > a relatively small capacity one cheaply, but again little choice, I can get
    > 500gb for £60
    > which seems poor value when for another £20 I can get 2TB!!!


    If you're buying a boot drive, the capacity isn't too important. And
    after the flooding in Thailand, that upset all the disk pricing. You
    can still find drives, where a small drive costs more than a big drive.
    The drive prices have been all over the place. At one point, about
    a third of what Newegg was selling, were refurbs (and listed as such).
    Sort of a "take a chance" drive. And that's because of the shortage,
    it was hard to get a steady supply of anything good. Even now, at
    my favorite local supplier, certain drive models are still
    missing in action.

    What I consider a bit surprising, is I'm still seeing IDE drives available.
    And models that had disappeared before the flooding. I don't know
    why some of them have come back. It's not like you dig up
    lily pads, and find them underneath :)

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 25, 2012
    #32
  13. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    news:NMfis.31205$4...
    >
    > "Paul" <> wrote in message
    > news:k62ps9$qvu$...
    >> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> My currrent card a
    >>> Radeon HD 3450 had a passmark of 130 against 382 for theGT520, so that
    >>> would
    >>> be 3 times faster than mine, which is a pretty basic card, the fact it
    >>> had no fan was a bonus for me
    >>> as my PC was anoisey enough, althougth I cured that by cleaning out my
    >>> heatsink, probably saved
    >>> a fair bit on electricity too going by the noise it generated.
    >>> I certainly do not have a probllem with graphics as far as I am aware, I
    >>> don't play any grapical games.
    >>> My only real concern would be if the lack of a card slowed the PC.
    >>> Actually I think the real reason I got a card for my PC was to enable me
    >>> to use two monitors, so
    >>> that is a consideraton, however I could use the card from this machine
    >>> for that if required.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I could not find a passmark for the inbuilt intel hd2000 graphics but
    >>> comparing to
    >>> to cards it was compared to which I could find I estimate if would have
    >>> a passmark of 260, so
    >>> there does not seem much point paying extra for something just 50%
    >>> faster, unless perhaps
    >>> it allows you to use two monitors, I think there are 2 port on the on
    >>> board intel hd 2000 machines
    >>> according to picture I saw but I could be wrong on that, might have been
    >>> a machine with a card in it.
    >>>

    >> <<snip>>
    >>
    >> The chart on that site, does have some entries for the Intel HD series.
    >> But the labels on the chart, almost looks like they were entered by the
    >> users, rather than being read straight from Device Manager by the
    >> benchmark tool.
    >>
    >> http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php
    >>
    >> Intel HD >a 4000 461
    >> Intel HD 200 320
    >> Intel HD 3000 331
    >> Intel HD 4000 525
    >>
    >> The HD 4000 may be stronger than the GT 520, but there might
    >> still be reasons to own the GT 520 instead. The software/driver
    >> side of Intel stuff, while it's improved, just doesn't keep up
    >> with the other graphics companies.
    >>
    >> Paul
    >>

    >
    > Thanks for that, that could come in useful, one of the problems is often
    > the graphics
    > are not clearly specified if indeed thay are specified at all.
    > This is another machine I have been looking, I was quite surprised to find
    > it as the store is
    > a department type store, many such store and indeed other retailed have
    > stopped stocking
    > computers at all so my by in store option are rather restricted.
    > Even he so called specialist computer stores have a very limited range
    > available, howver
    > for some reason they like to advestise computers they cannot actually
    > suppply!!
    > This was the machine.
    >
    > http://www.johnlewis.com/231496996/Product.aspx
    >
    > I was quite surprise to find an i7 for under £600 there as it is a store
    > renown for good service
    > ( most staff are shareholders) and thus tends to be a bit more expensive
    > than the box shifters.
    > Hard to find a detailed specification for it though.
    >
    > Mean while I cleared data off my 500gb extrenal drive withthe idea of
    > replacing the failed drive with
    > it, howver when I opened it up I found it i snot SATA but PATA so I think
    > I'd neeed an adapter.
    >
    > I also wanted to put the failed drive inthe housing to see if I could have
    > a look at it that way, just
    > curious to investigate it;s odd problems.
    >
    >
    > I found the SMART data I took from it from a coupleof months ago, I don't
    > think it
    > indicates any problems but I am not good at understanding it, I do not it
    > says error retreiving
    > SMART data at the end though.
    >
    > *** DiskCheckup V3.1 Build: 1005 Report ***
    >
    > SysInfo DLL Version: SysInfo v1.0 Build: 1028
    > Time of export: 21:59:30 30-Aug-2012
    >
    > Device information:
    > Device ID: 0
    > Interface: ATA
    > Device Capacity:
    > 238472 MB
    > Serial Number: S08BJ10L440410
    > Model Number: SAMSUNG SP2514N
    > Firmware Revision: VF900-33
    > Partitions:
    > C: 232329 MB
    > D: 6130 MB
    >
    > ATA information:
    >
    > Disk geometry:
    > Cylinders: 32301
    > Tracks/Cylinder: 240
    > Sectors/Track: 63
    > Bytes/Sector: 512
    > Total disk sectors: 488397168
    > Logical sector size: 512
    > Physical sector size: 512
    > Media rotation rate: N/A
    > Buffer size: 8192
    > KB
    > ECC size: 4
    > Bytes
    >
    > Standards compliance:
    > ATA8-ACS Supported: No
    > ATA/ATAPI-7 Supported: Yes
    > ATA/ATAPI-6 Supported: Yes
    > ATA/ATAPI-5 Supported: Yes
    > ATA/ATAPI-4 Supported: Yes
    > World Wide ID: 50000F001B440410
    >
    > Feature support:
    > SMART supported: Yes
    > SMART enabled: Yes
    > SMART self-test supported: Yes
    > SMART error log supported: Yes
    > LBA supported: Yes
    > IORDY supported: Yes
    > CFast supported: No
    > DMA supported: Yes
    > Maximum Multiword DMA mode supported: 2
    > Multiword DMA selected: None
    > Maximum UltraDMA mode supported: 6
    > UltraDMA selected: 5
    > Maximum PIO mode supported: 4
    > SATA Compliance: No
    > Trusted Computing supported: No
    > Host Protected Area (HPA) supported: Yes
    > Read look-ahead supported: Yes
    > Read look-ahead enabled: Yes
    > Write cache supported: Yes
    > Write cache enabled: Yes
    > Power management supported: Yes
    > Security mode supported: Yes
    > Security mode enabled: No
    > Device Configuration Overlay (DCO) supported: Yes
    > 48bit Addressing supported: Yes
    > Auto Acoustic Managment (AAM) supported: Yes
    > Auto Acoustic Managment (AAM) enabled: Yes
    > Recommended AAM level: Maximum performance
    > Current AAM level: Minimum acoustic emanation level
    > Power-up in Standby (PUIS) supported: Yes
    > Power-up in Standby (PUIS) enabled: No
    > Advanced Power Management (APM) supported: No
    > CompactFlash Association (CFA) supported: No
    > General Purpose Logging (GPL) supported: Yes
    > Streaming supported: Yes
    > Media card pass through supported: No
    > Extended power conditions supported: No
    > Extended status reporting supported: No
    > Write-read-verify supported: No
    > Free-fall control supported: No
    > TRIM command supported: No
    > SCT command transport supported: No
    > NV Cache enabled: No
    > NV Cache Power Management supported: No
    >
    > SMART ATTRIBUTES:
    > ID Description Status Value Worst
    > Threshold Raw Value TEC
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 1 Raw Read Error Rate OK 100 100
    > 51 0 N.A.
    > 3 Spin Up Time OK 100 100
    > 25 6208 N.A.
    > 4 Start/Stop Count OK 92 92 0
    > 8501 N.A.
    > 5 Reallocated Sector Count OK 253 253
    > 10 0 N.A.
    > 7 Seek Error Rate OK 253 253
    > 51 0 N.A.
    > 8 Seek Time Performance OK 253 253
    > 15 0 N.A.
    > 9 Power On Time OK 100 100 0
    > 34391 N.A.
    > 10 Spin Retry Count OK 253 253
    > 51 0 N.A.
    > 11 Calibration Retry Count OK 253 2 0
    > 0 N.A.
    > 12 Power Cycle Count OK 96 96 0
    > 4149 N.A.
    > 190 Temperature Difference from 100 OK 127 100
    > 0 37 N.A.
    > 194 Temperature OK 127 100
    > 0 37 C N.A.
    > 195 Hardware ECC Recovered OK 100 100
    > 0 9971601 N.A.
    > 196 Reallocation Event Count OK 253 253
    > 0 0 N.A.
    > 197 Current Pending Sector Count OK 253 253
    > 0 0 N.A.
    > 198 Uncorrectable Sector Count OK 253 253
    > 0 0 N.A.
    > 199 UltraDMA CRC Error Count OK 200 200
    > 0 0 N.A.
    > 200 Write Error Count OK 100 100
    > 0 0 N.A.
    > 201 Off Track Errors OK 100 100
    > 0 0 N.A.
    >
    > SMART HISTORY:
    > Error retrieving history
    > ==========================================
    >
    >
    > Anyhow I an reluctant to boot with it on as a slave drive as it is hard to
    > boot, it detects the drive problem
    > and report them but I should still be able to continue to boot up on the
    > good master drive but that seem
    > to just hang for ever when I press F1 to continue, or indeed F2 to quit.
    >
    > The only way I can get it to boot up is to press ESC at boot-up to go to
    > a boot menu
    > which allows me to select which drive to boot from, however that does not
    > allways work
    > and sometimes has led to it rebooting when booting up on my good drive
    > which puts me off
    > messing around with it as I have no backup, really, however I did select
    > boot from last known good
    > configuration, but that failed too, but then I just did a straight boot
    > and it booted OK.
    > Hence I don't like to mess too much with it, but curiousity sometimes gets
    > the better of me.
    >
    > I had also been looking for at another drive for it, I though I might be
    > able to pick up
    > a relatively small capacity one cheaply, but again little choice, I can
    > get 500gb for £60
    > which seems poor value when for another £20 I can get 2TB!!!
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    > Error retrieving history
    >
    >


    I just noticed I had system restore turned off.


    I had turned it off when I was doing my clone. maybe I forgot to turn it
    back on.
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 25, 2012
    #33
  14. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:k6c6pg$if$...
    > R. Giggs. wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Thanks for that, that could come in useful, one of the problems is often
    >> the graphics
    >> are not clearly specified if indeed thay are specified at all.
    >> This is another machine I have been looking, I was quite surprised to
    >> find it as the store is
    >> a department type store, many such store and indeed other retailed have
    >> stopped stocking
    >> computers at all so my by in store option are rather restricted.
    >> Even he so called specialist computer stores have a very limited range
    >> available, howver
    >> for some reason they like to advestise computers they cannot actually
    >> suppply!!
    >> This was the machine.
    >>
    >> http://www.johnlewis.com/231496996/Product.aspx
    >>
    >> I was quite surprise to find an i7 for under £600 there as it is a store
    >> renown for good service
    >> ( most staff are shareholders) and thus tends to be a bit more expensive
    >> than the box shifters.
    >> Hard to find a detailed specification for it though.

    >
    > That machine appeared on Amazon about a year ago, judging by
    > the date of the reviews. It could well be out of stock by now.
    > Sometimes, machines like this appear, because they're clearance
    > items. Companies acquire clearance items from the manufacturer,
    > a bulk lot of them, and when they're gone, that's it.



    THe one I listed has a stock count and it is now down to 4, I know it was
    more than that
    when I looked earlier either 6 or8. SO I may have to get a move on if I want
    one, but
    I don't like buying under pressure.

    The John Lewis one also has good reviews, the only negative comment is
    " would have given it 5 stars if it had wifi, also the price is a bit steep.
    "

    wel compared to a lot of i7's I have seem it is a pretty good price, that
    reviewer is pretty hard to please!!

    A more positive comment is " Although the John Lewis website says it has a
    wired keyboard and mouse, in fact it comes with both as wireless."

    Also you listed an i5 on amazon, this one is the i7

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Acer-Aspire...1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1351263381&sr=1-1


    I note it specifies a graphics card, Nvidia GeForce GT530, it's also a
    differet speed
    2600 v 3300 so It may be different from the John Lewis one.





    >
    > http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-rev.../275-4881420-1501401?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
    >
    > It's worth reading the reviews on that page as well. One customer
    > finds the case is too small. Hard to fit a video card in it.


    Yes, certainly the cases are small a few companies are maning machines with
    these
    small cases now, it's a bit of a double edged sword, I woudl appreciated the
    space saving
    and compactness but fiddling around inside them must be a bit of a
    nightmare, but I don't
    know as I have never had a look inside.


    >
    >>
    >> I found the SMART data I took from it from a coupleof months ago, I don't
    >> think it
    >> indicates any problems but I am not good at understanding it, I do not it
    >> says error retreiving
    >> SMART data at the end though.
    >>
    >> *** DiskCheckup V3.1 Build: 1005 Report ***
    >>
    >> Model Number: SAMSUNG SP2514N
    >> Firmware Revision: VF900-33

    >
    >> SMART ATTRIBUTES:
    >> ID Description Status Value Worst Threshold Raw
    >> Value
    >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> 5 Reallocated Sector Count OK 253 253 10 0
    >> 197 Current Pending Sector Count OK 253 253 0 0

    >
    > Both raw values there are "0", so it's fine. I use those two
    > as "danger" indicators. The smart readout tool usually colors
    > entries that are abnormal, but sometimes the warning shown
    > is not an important one. But those two hint at the condition
    > of the platters and surfaces.


    The thing was with my machine was it went very quickly only a few months
    after being supposedly fine so I am not totally convinced it is a real drive
    problem
    rather something caused by a virus/malware. I never found anything when I
    scanned
    but then half the drive was missing, or seamingly so.
    I mean stuff appeared when viewed through MSDOS which was not there under
    windows. That does not sound like a faulty drive to me. Why would one
    program
    find files but not another? It does not make sense.
    Then there is also this business about the SMART program saying the drive
    is not
    a SMART drive now, how can that be? I was thinking perhaps that SMART stores
    it's
    info in a file on the drive and that file has gone missing or is corrupted,
    however I do not
    know how SMART works, apparently there is no definitive standard and each
    manufcaturer
    does it it's own way and I have no idea where this smart info is stored ont
    eh drive, I assume it
    must be stored on it somewhere.

    I think I will have anothe go at booting with the drivie connected, but I
    don't like
    doing that because it has means I have to power off when it becomes 'stuck'
    when trying
    to boot, but I might be able to avoid this by trying to go straight into the
    BIOS at BIOS
    and then specifying to boot from the good drive, whcih usually works.


    >
    >>
    >> Anyhow I an reluctant to boot with it on as a slave drive as it is hard
    >> to boot, it detects the drive problem
    >> and report them but I should still be able to continue to boot up on the
    >> good master drive but that seem
    >> to just hang for ever when I press F1 to continue, or indeed F2 to quit.
    >>
    >> The only way I can get it to boot up is to press ESC at boot-up to go to
    >> a boot menu
    >> which allows me to select which drive to boot from, however that does not
    >> allways work
    >> and sometimes has led to it rebooting when booting up on my good drive
    >> which puts me off
    >> messing around with it as I have no backup, really, however I did select
    >> boot from last known good
    >> configuration, but that failed too, but then I just did a straight boot
    >> and it booted OK.
    >> Hence I don't like to mess too much with it, but curiousity sometimes
    >> gets the better of me.
    >>
    >> I had also been looking for at another drive for it, I though I might
    >> be able to pick up
    >> a relatively small capacity one cheaply, but again little choice, I can
    >> get 500gb for £60
    >> which seems poor value when for another £20 I can get 2TB!!!

    >
    > If you're buying a boot drive, the capacity isn't too important. And
    > after the flooding in Thailand, that upset all the disk pricing. You
    > can still find drives, where a small drive costs more than a big drive.
    > The drive prices have been all over the place. At one point, about
    > a third of what Newegg was selling, were refurbs (and listed as such).
    > Sort of a "take a chance" drive. And that's because of the shortage,
    > it was hard to get a steady supply of anything good. Even now, at
    > my favorite local supplier, certain drive models are still
    > missing in action.


    Not realy so much a boot drive I need but more space, the current
    drive is only 60gb which does not give me much space to work with without
    connecting a USB drive.
    I have oredered some SATA connector cables so I can use my 500GB
    external USB drive as an internal drive, so if that works I guess I will not
    need a new internal drive.
    I just though I might be able to pick u a cheap IDE drive from somewhere
    local but nobody
    seems to seel them.

    The drive shortage problem may explina why the store have so few PC's
    available for collection, or maybe it is just costly for them to stock them.



    >
    > What I consider a bit surprising, is I'm still seeing IDE drives
    > available.


    As I said I can't find any IDE drives available locally they are all SATA
    and I don't have the cables for the yet, although there is a connector on
    the board.
    Indeed most of the hard drives available seem to be external drives and they
    will
    surely be SATA inside.


    > And models that had disappeared before the flooding. I don't know
    > why some of them have come back. It's not like you dig up
    > lily pads, and find them underneath :)
    >
    > Paul
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 26, 2012
    #34
  15. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    >
    > The thing was with my machine was it went very quickly only a few months
    > after being supposedly fine so I am not totally convinced it is a real
    > drive problem
    > rather something caused by a virus/malware. I never found anything when I
    > scanned
    > but then half the drive was missing, or seamingly so.
    > I mean stuff appeared when viewed through MSDOS which was not there under
    > windows. That does not sound like a faulty drive to me. Why would one
    > program
    > find files but not another? It does not make sense.
    > Then there is also this business about the SMART program saying the drive
    > is not
    > a SMART drive now, how can that be? I was thinking perhaps that SMART
    > stores it's
    > info in a file on the drive and that file has gone missing or is
    > corrupted, however I do not
    > know how SMART works, apparently there is no definitive standard and each
    > manufcaturer
    > does it it's own way and I have no idea where this smart info is stored
    > ont eh drive, I assume it
    > must be stored on it somewhere.
    >
    > I think I will have anothe go at booting with the drivie connected, but I
    > don't like
    > doing that because it has means I have to power off when it becomes
    > 'stuck' when trying
    > to boot, but I might be able to avoid this by trying to go straight into
    > the BIOS at BIOS
    > and then specifying to boot from the good drive, whcih usually works.
    >



    I have managed to boot up again with the bad drive connect, but it is rather
    difficult to do.
    I think I can get to the boot menu if I press ESC quickly during boot up at
    least it worked this
    time, sometimes it does not seem to work though, maybe I was too slow
    pressing ESC
    and it starts doing it's SMART test, once it gets that far it seems there is
    nothing you can do but
    reboot, the two option F1 to exit and F2 to continue (or similar) just lead
    to a black screen
    with a curser top right which just seems to sit there and do nothing. Maybe
    if I waited ages it might
    do something but the longest I have wited is 10 minutes, which seems along
    time.

    Anyway I download Active Hard disk monitor from here
    http://www.disk-monitor.com/
    It seems quite a useful tool, anyway on it it says SMART info is disabled
    for the drive, but it
    also says SMART not supported. However as I have retrieved the SMART info
    for the drive
    before and indeed posted it here the drive certainly does or rather should
    support SMART.
    I am thinking maybe there might be and option to enable or disable SMART in
    the BIOS, however
    it would have to do that individually for each drive as SMART works on the
    other drive.
    I have a feeling there will not be such and option though, I certainly do
    not recall seeing one
    but then I don't recall much about the BIOS at all.
    I am not even sure if I cna get intot he BIOS witht he bad drive connected
    but I will have to
    try, I am not sure if it has an option saying BIOS, it may be that it is
    under press F1 for set-up,
    I will have to have a look. However I am just ruuning the drive scan feature
    on this disk monitor tool
    so I will wait untill that has finished, it's about 85% completed and has
    found no errors which seems
    to verify my suspicion that there is nothing physcally wrong with the drive.
    I will also see if I can get any info from Samsung about the SMART info on
    the bad drive, but I have
    a feeling I won't be able to.
    Actually the drive scan has just found 4 bad blocks!!
    If I click on the bad blocks it reveals a list of bad sectors within them.
    I am not sure how bad this is, there are only 4 bad blocks out of 4770 so
    lest than 0.1%
    is that a bad drive??
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 27, 2012
    #35
  16. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    news:6hGis.72862$4...
    > >
    >> The thing was with my machine was it went very quickly only a few months
    >> after being supposedly fine so I am not totally convinced it is a real
    >> drive problem
    >> rather something caused by a virus/malware. I never found anything when I
    >> scanned
    >> but then half the drive was missing, or seamingly so.
    >> I mean stuff appeared when viewed through MSDOS which was not there under
    >> windows. That does not sound like a faulty drive to me. Why would one
    >> program
    >> find files but not another? It does not make sense.
    >> Then there is also this business about the SMART program saying the
    >> drive is not
    >> a SMART drive now, how can that be? I was thinking perhaps that SMART
    >> stores it's
    >> info in a file on the drive and that file has gone missing or is
    >> corrupted, however I do not
    >> know how SMART works, apparently there is no definitive standard and each
    >> manufcaturer
    >> does it it's own way and I have no idea where this smart info is stored
    >> ont eh drive, I assume it
    >> must be stored on it somewhere.
    >>
    >> I think I will have anothe go at booting with the drivie connected, but I
    >> don't like
    >> doing that because it has means I have to power off when it becomes
    >> 'stuck' when trying
    >> to boot, but I might be able to avoid this by trying to go straight into
    >> the BIOS at BIOS
    >> and then specifying to boot from the good drive, whcih usually works.
    >>

    >
    >
    > I have managed to boot up again with the bad drive connect, but it is
    > rather difficult to do.
    > I think I can get to the boot menu if I press ESC quickly during boot up
    > at least it worked this
    > time, sometimes it does not seem to work though, maybe I was too slow
    > pressing ESC
    > and it starts doing it's SMART test, once it gets that far it seems there
    > is nothing you can do but
    > reboot, the two option F1 to exit and F2 to continue (or similar) just
    > lead to a black screen
    > with a curser top right which just seems to sit there and do nothing.
    > Maybe if I waited ages it might
    > do something but the longest I have wited is 10 minutes, which seems along
    > time.
    >
    > Anyway I download Active Hard disk monitor from here
    > http://www.disk-monitor.com/
    > It seems quite a useful tool, anyway on it it says SMART info is disabled
    > for the drive, but it
    > also says SMART not supported. However as I have retrieved the SMART info
    > for the drive
    > before and indeed posted it here the drive certainly does or rather should
    > support SMART.
    > I am thinking maybe there might be and option to enable or disable SMART
    > in the BIOS, however
    > it would have to do that individually for each drive as SMART works on the
    > other drive.
    > I have a feeling there will not be such and option though, I certainly do
    > not recall seeing one
    > but then I don't recall much about the BIOS at all.
    > I am not even sure if I cna get intot he BIOS witht he bad drive connected
    > but I will have to
    > try, I am not sure if it has an option saying BIOS, it may be that it is
    > under press F1 for set-up,
    > I will have to have a look. However I am just ruuning the drive scan
    > feature on this disk monitor tool
    > so I will wait untill that has finished, it's about 85% completed and has
    > found no errors which seems
    > to verify my suspicion that there is nothing physcally wrong with the
    > drive.
    > I will also see if I can get any info from Samsung about the SMART info on
    > the bad drive, but I have
    > a feeling I won't be able to.
    > Actually the drive scan has just found 4 bad blocks!!
    > If I click on the bad blocks it reveals a list of bad sectors within them.
    > I am not sure how bad this is, there are only 4 bad blocks out of 4770 so
    > lest than 0.1%
    > is that a bad drive??
    >


    I seem to have figured out how to get intot he bios and boot menu now
    without too
    much troube, which means I can keep the bad drive in and boot up fairly
    easilly.

    I went into the bios to look at the SMART setting, on the good drive I can
    look at
    the SMART info and run a SMART test, however on the bad drive it says
    either disabled or not supported, which I took a note of the wording.
    Also the screen you go to to look at the SMART status for that drive seems
    to
    hang sometimes even when you are doing nothing other than tabing through
    some
    of the options there, but not changing anything, maybe something causes it
    to try and
    access the drive and that casues it to hang.
    Anyhow I don't seem to be able to disable SMART tests.

    So not too sure what to do now, I may try to run a chkdsk on that drive, but
    they often
    take ages and sometimes just do not complete or say the test could not
    complete.

    I could also try formatting the drive and see if that helps.
    It could be that maybe there is a chip on the drive which is damage, the
    SMART chip
    perhaps is there is one. I noticed the IDE conector looked a bit discoloured
    in the centre
    like it had got hot or something but that's a but far fetched.

    If chkdsk or formatting does not clear the problem(s) I guess I can still
    use the drive for
    unimportant stuff such as recording TV stuff I would probably delete
    eventually anyway.
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 27, 2012
    #36
  17. R. Giggs.

    Paul Guest

    R. Giggs. wrote:
    > "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    > news:6hGis.72862$4...
    >>> The thing was with my machine was it went very quickly only a few months
    >>> after being supposedly fine so I am not totally convinced it is a real
    >>> drive problem
    >>> rather something caused by a virus/malware. I never found anything when I
    >>> scanned
    >>> but then half the drive was missing, or seamingly so.
    >>> I mean stuff appeared when viewed through MSDOS which was not there under
    >>> windows. That does not sound like a faulty drive to me. Why would one
    >>> program
    >>> find files but not another? It does not make sense.
    >>> Then there is also this business about the SMART program saying the
    >>> drive is not
    >>> a SMART drive now, how can that be? I was thinking perhaps that SMART
    >>> stores it's
    >>> info in a file on the drive and that file has gone missing or is
    >>> corrupted, however I do not
    >>> know how SMART works, apparently there is no definitive standard and each
    >>> manufcaturer
    >>> does it it's own way and I have no idea where this smart info is stored
    >>> ont eh drive, I assume it
    >>> must be stored on it somewhere.
    >>>
    >>> I think I will have anothe go at booting with the drivie connected, but I
    >>> don't like
    >>> doing that because it has means I have to power off when it becomes
    >>> 'stuck' when trying
    >>> to boot, but I might be able to avoid this by trying to go straight into
    >>> the BIOS at BIOS
    >>> and then specifying to boot from the good drive, whcih usually works.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I have managed to boot up again with the bad drive connect, but it is
    >> rather difficult to do.
    >> I think I can get to the boot menu if I press ESC quickly during boot up
    >> at least it worked this
    >> time, sometimes it does not seem to work though, maybe I was too slow
    >> pressing ESC
    >> and it starts doing it's SMART test, once it gets that far it seems there
    >> is nothing you can do but
    >> reboot, the two option F1 to exit and F2 to continue (or similar) just
    >> lead to a black screen
    >> with a curser top right which just seems to sit there and do nothing.
    >> Maybe if I waited ages it might
    >> do something but the longest I have wited is 10 minutes, which seems along
    >> time.
    >>
    >> Anyway I download Active Hard disk monitor from here
    >> http://www.disk-monitor.com/
    >> It seems quite a useful tool, anyway on it it says SMART info is disabled
    >> for the drive, but it
    >> also says SMART not supported. However as I have retrieved the SMART info
    >> for the drive
    >> before and indeed posted it here the drive certainly does or rather should
    >> support SMART.
    >> I am thinking maybe there might be and option to enable or disable SMART
    >> in the BIOS, however
    >> it would have to do that individually for each drive as SMART works on the
    >> other drive.
    >> I have a feeling there will not be such and option though, I certainly do
    >> not recall seeing one
    >> but then I don't recall much about the BIOS at all.
    >> I am not even sure if I cna get intot he BIOS witht he bad drive connected
    >> but I will have to
    >> try, I am not sure if it has an option saying BIOS, it may be that it is
    >> under press F1 for set-up,
    >> I will have to have a look. However I am just ruuning the drive scan
    >> feature on this disk monitor tool
    >> so I will wait untill that has finished, it's about 85% completed and has
    >> found no errors which seems
    >> to verify my suspicion that there is nothing physcally wrong with the
    >> drive.
    >> I will also see if I can get any info from Samsung about the SMART info on
    >> the bad drive, but I have
    >> a feeling I won't be able to.
    >> Actually the drive scan has just found 4 bad blocks!!
    >> If I click on the bad blocks it reveals a list of bad sectors within them.
    >> I am not sure how bad this is, there are only 4 bad blocks out of 4770 so
    >> lest than 0.1%
    >> is that a bad drive??
    >>

    >
    > I seem to have figured out how to get intot he bios and boot menu now
    > without too
    > much troube, which means I can keep the bad drive in and boot up fairly
    > easilly.
    >
    > I went into the bios to look at the SMART setting, on the good drive I can
    > look at
    > the SMART info and run a SMART test, however on the bad drive it says
    > either disabled or not supported, which I took a note of the wording.
    > Also the screen you go to to look at the SMART status for that drive seems
    > to
    > hang sometimes even when you are doing nothing other than tabing through
    > some
    > of the options there, but not changing anything, maybe something causes it
    > to try and
    > access the drive and that casues it to hang.
    > Anyhow I don't seem to be able to disable SMART tests.
    >
    > So not too sure what to do now, I may try to run a chkdsk on that drive, but
    > they often
    > take ages and sometimes just do not complete or say the test could not
    > complete.
    >
    > I could also try formatting the drive and see if that helps.
    > It could be that maybe there is a chip on the drive which is damage, the
    > SMART chip
    > perhaps is there is one. I noticed the IDE conector looked a bit discoloured
    > in the centre
    > like it had got hot or something but that's a but far fetched.
    >
    > If chkdsk or formatting does not clear the problem(s) I guess I can still
    > use the drive for
    > unimportant stuff such as recording TV stuff I would probably delete
    > eventually anyway.
    >
    >


    The BIOS setting for SMART, I think the purpose of that, is for
    the BIOS to read the SMART table during POST. If the BIOS sees
    something bad, it is supposed to warn you at the BIOS level. It
    is present, with the idea you get a warning as soon as possible.

    The setting does not disable SMART for while you're in Windows.
    The setting is for determining whether the BIOS is to check
    for dangerous indications or not, in the SMART.

    SMART requires passthru to work. Depending on the hardware
    and driver used, there have been cases where there is no software
    path for the SMART command to get through. That might account
    for the monitoring software you were using, putting up such a message
    ("Smart disabled").

    Have you tried the SMART screen (Health Tab) in HDTune ?
    It doesn't continuously monitor health, and only reads out
    the table of info from the disk, when the Health Tab is running.
    Version 2.55 is free and good enough for things like the SMART info.

    http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe

    The disk stores data in "clusters" of sectors. If Windows does
    integrity checking, if a bad sector is found, it should cause
    the whole cluster to be marked off-limits. So the smallest
    storage unit, from a hardware perspective, is a sector. But
    for management purposes, and for performance, larger groups
    of them are used. On my FAT32 partition, I think it's around
    32K per cluster or 64 sectors of 512 bytes each. One bad
    sector, would cause the other 63 next to it to be rejected
    as well, as far as FAT32 is concerned. Free space on the
    disk is managed in clusters as well. So you can't really
    allocate just 512 bytes. It was done that way, partially,
    so any tables used to manage storage space, wouldn't
    take as many resources.

    If you were scanning at the sector level, there would be
    millions of sectors. Take the drive capacity in bytes,
    divide by 512 byte sectors and see how large a number
    that is. When counted in clusters, it's a slightly
    smaller number.

    The ATA drives have automatic sector sparing. If a sector
    is flaky, the controller substitutes a spare sector for
    the bad one. When an area of the disk runs out of spares,
    that's when a CRC error will finally be reported. (As it's
    no longer possible to make it seem like a good sector is
    present.) When a sector is spared, that tends to slow the
    disk down. If you see lots of "spikes" in a transfer
    rate curve, that hints there has been a fair amount of
    repair to the disk already. If you get to the point
    that surface scans are masking off whole clusters,
    then chances are the two SMART "danger parameters" I listed
    in a previous post, are also showing non-zero raw data,
    and the disk is "ripe".

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 27, 2012
    #37
  18. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:k6ft0u$q4o$...
    > R. Giggs. wrote:
    >> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >> news:6hGis.72862$4...
    >>>> The thing was with my machine was it went very quickly only a few
    >>>> months
    >>>> after being supposedly fine so I am not totally convinced it is a real
    >>>> drive problem
    >>>> rather something caused by a virus/malware. I never found anything when
    >>>> I scanned
    >>>> but then half the drive was missing, or seamingly so.
    >>>> I mean stuff appeared when viewed through MSDOS which was not there
    >>>> under
    >>>> windows. That does not sound like a faulty drive to me. Why would one
    >>>> program
    >>>> find files but not another? It does not make sense.
    >>>> Then there is also this business about the SMART program saying the
    >>>> drive is not
    >>>> a SMART drive now, how can that be? I was thinking perhaps that SMART
    >>>> stores it's
    >>>> info in a file on the drive and that file has gone missing or is
    >>>> corrupted, however I do not
    >>>> know how SMART works, apparently there is no definitive standard and
    >>>> each manufcaturer
    >>>> does it it's own way and I have no idea where this smart info is stored
    >>>> ont eh drive, I assume it
    >>>> must be stored on it somewhere.
    >>>>
    >>>> I think I will have anothe go at booting with the drivie connected, but
    >>>> I don't like
    >>>> doing that because it has means I have to power off when it becomes
    >>>> 'stuck' when trying
    >>>> to boot, but I might be able to avoid this by trying to go straight
    >>>> into the BIOS at BIOS
    >>>> and then specifying to boot from the good drive, whcih usually works.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I have managed to boot up again with the bad drive connect, but it is
    >>> rather difficult to do.
    >>> I think I can get to the boot menu if I press ESC quickly during boot up
    >>> at least it worked this
    >>> time, sometimes it does not seem to work though, maybe I was too slow
    >>> pressing ESC
    >>> and it starts doing it's SMART test, once it gets that far it seems
    >>> there is nothing you can do but
    >>> reboot, the two option F1 to exit and F2 to continue (or similar) just
    >>> lead to a black screen
    >>> with a curser top right which just seems to sit there and do nothing.
    >>> Maybe if I waited ages it might
    >>> do something but the longest I have wited is 10 minutes, which seems
    >>> along time.
    >>>
    >>> Anyway I download Active Hard disk monitor from here
    >>> http://www.disk-monitor.com/
    >>> It seems quite a useful tool, anyway on it it says SMART info is
    >>> disabled for the drive, but it
    >>> also says SMART not supported. However as I have retrieved the SMART
    >>> info for the drive
    >>> before and indeed posted it here the drive certainly does or rather
    >>> should support SMART.
    >>> I am thinking maybe there might be and option to enable or disable SMART
    >>> in the BIOS, however
    >>> it would have to do that individually for each drive as SMART works on
    >>> the other drive.
    >>> I have a feeling there will not be such and option though, I certainly
    >>> do not recall seeing one
    >>> but then I don't recall much about the BIOS at all.
    >>> I am not even sure if I cna get intot he BIOS witht he bad drive
    >>> connected but I will have to
    >>> try, I am not sure if it has an option saying BIOS, it may be that it is
    >>> under press F1 for set-up,
    >>> I will have to have a look. However I am just ruuning the drive scan
    >>> feature on this disk monitor tool
    >>> so I will wait untill that has finished, it's about 85% completed and
    >>> has found no errors which seems
    >>> to verify my suspicion that there is nothing physcally wrong with the
    >>> drive.
    >>> I will also see if I can get any info from Samsung about the SMART info
    >>> on the bad drive, but I have
    >>> a feeling I won't be able to.
    >>> Actually the drive scan has just found 4 bad blocks!!
    >>> If I click on the bad blocks it reveals a list of bad sectors within
    >>> them.
    >>> I am not sure how bad this is, there are only 4 bad blocks out of 4770
    >>> so lest than 0.1%
    >>> is that a bad drive??
    >>>

    >>
    >> I seem to have figured out how to get intot he bios and boot menu now
    >> without too
    >> much troube, which means I can keep the bad drive in and boot up fairly
    >> easilly.
    >>
    >> I went into the bios to look at the SMART setting, on the good drive I
    >> can look at
    >> the SMART info and run a SMART test, however on the bad drive it says
    >> either disabled or not supported, which I took a note of the wording.
    >> Also the screen you go to to look at the SMART status for that drive
    >> seems to
    >> hang sometimes even when you are doing nothing other than tabing through
    >> some
    >> of the options there, but not changing anything, maybe something causes
    >> it to try and
    >> access the drive and that casues it to hang.
    >> Anyhow I don't seem to be able to disable SMART tests.
    >>
    >> So not too sure what to do now, I may try to run a chkdsk on that drive,
    >> but they often
    >> take ages and sometimes just do not complete or say the test could not
    >> complete.
    >>
    >> I could also try formatting the drive and see if that helps.
    >> It could be that maybe there is a chip on the drive which is damage, the
    >> SMART chip
    >> perhaps is there is one. I noticed the IDE conector looked a bit
    >> discoloured in the centre
    >> like it had got hot or something but that's a but far fetched.
    >>
    >> If chkdsk or formatting does not clear the problem(s) I guess I can still
    >> use the drive for
    >> unimportant stuff such as recording TV stuff I would probably delete
    >> eventually anyway.

    >
    > The BIOS setting for SMART, I think the purpose of that, is for
    > the BIOS to read the SMART table during POST. If the BIOS sees
    > something bad, it is supposed to warn you at the BIOS level. It
    > is present, with the idea you get a warning as soon as possible.
    >
    > The setting does not disable SMART for while you're in Windows.
    > The setting is for determining whether the BIOS is to check
    > for dangerous indications or not, in the SMART.
    >
    > SMART requires passthru to work. Depending on the hardware
    > and driver used, there have been cases where there is no software
    > path for the SMART command to get through. That might account
    > for the monitoring software you were using, putting up such a message
    > ("Smart disabled").
    >
    > Have you tried the SMART screen (Health Tab) in HDTune ?
    > It doesn't continuously monitor health, and only reads out
    > the table of info from the disk, when the Health Tab is running.
    > Version 2.55 is free and good enough for things like the SMART info.
    >
    > http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe
    >
    > The disk stores data in "clusters" of sectors. If Windows does
    > integrity checking, if a bad sector is found, it should cause
    > the whole cluster to be marked off-limits. So the smallest
    > storage unit, from a hardware perspective, is a sector. But
    > for management purposes, and for performance, larger groups
    > of them are used. On my FAT32 partition, I think it's around
    > 32K per cluster or 64 sectors of 512 bytes each. One bad
    > sector, would cause the other 63 next to it to be rejected
    > as well, as far as FAT32 is concerned. Free space on the
    > disk is managed in clusters as well. So you can't really
    > allocate just 512 bytes. It was done that way, partially,
    > so any tables used to manage storage space, wouldn't
    > take as many resources.
    >
    > If you were scanning at the sector level, there would be
    > millions of sectors. Take the drive capacity in bytes,
    > divide by 512 byte sectors and see how large a number
    > that is. When counted in clusters, it's a slightly
    > smaller number.
    >
    > The ATA drives have automatic sector sparing. If a sector
    > is flaky, the controller substitutes a spare sector for
    > the bad one. When an area of the disk runs out of spares,
    > that's when a CRC error will finally be reported. (As it's
    > no longer possible to make it seem like a good sector is
    > present.) When a sector is spared, that tends to slow the
    > disk down. If you see lots of "spikes" in a transfer
    > rate curve, that hints there has been a fair amount of
    > repair to the disk already. If you get to the point
    > that surface scans are masking off whole clusters,
    > then chances are the two SMART "danger parameters" I listed
    > in a previous post, are also showing non-zero raw data,
    > and the disk is "ripe".
    >
    > Paul


    Just a quick update, I will reply in more detail later.
    I ran chkdsk with it set to fic errors, it ran right through to complete all
    stages,
    In the eevent log I can see a list of errors it found, verious types
    including
    stuff like - recieving orphaned file chcp.com into(292230 into directory
    file (2383730 or similar,
    unfortunatly i cant seem to save the file so I can post it.

    Anyhow the drive is stil being report as not a SMART drive so I expect the
    boot problem
    will stil be there. I am not sur what the chkdsk has done with the lost
    files, are they repaired
    or stil lost?

    I am running the other drive check program to see if it stiill report the 4
    bad bocks.
    Actually I just noticed one of the files it 'recieved' (in the error list)
    was chkdsk.exe,
    the file I was running!!!!!!! HOwever I think the errors were listed under
    minor iconistancies,
    It's a shame i cant save the file to post it.

    Will report back more later.
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 27, 2012
    #38
  19. R. Giggs.

    Paul Guest

    R. Giggs. wrote:

    >
    > Just a quick update, I will reply in more detail later.
    > I ran chkdsk with it set to fic errors, it ran right through to complete all
    > stages,
    > In the eevent log I can see a list of errors it found, verious types
    > including
    > stuff like - recieving orphaned file chcp.com into(292230 into directory
    > file (2383730 or similar,
    > unfortunatly i cant seem to save the file so I can post it.
    >
    > Anyhow the drive is stil being report as not a SMART drive so I expect the
    > boot problem
    > will stil be there. I am not sur what the chkdsk has done with the lost
    > files, are they repaired
    > or stil lost?
    >
    > I am running the other drive check program to see if it stiill report the 4
    > bad bocks.
    > Actually I just noticed one of the files it 'recieved' (in the error list)
    > was chkdsk.exe,
    > the file I was running!!!!!!! HOwever I think the errors were listed under
    > minor iconistancies,
    > It's a shame i cant save the file to post it.
    >
    > Will report back more later.
    >


    On my C: drive, orphan files are place in C:\FOUND.000,
    but without proper file names. There is no guarantee that
    everything lost, is recoverable.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 27, 2012
    #39
  20. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:k6ft0u$q4o$...
    > R. Giggs. wrote:
    >> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >> news:6hGis.72862$4...
    >>>> The thing was with my machine was it went very quickly only a few
    >>>> months
    >>>> after being supposedly fine so I am not totally convinced it is a real
    >>>> drive problem
    >>>> rather something caused by a virus/malware. I never found anything when
    >>>> I scanned
    >>>> but then half the drive was missing, or seamingly so.
    >>>> I mean stuff appeared when viewed through MSDOS which was not there
    >>>> under
    >>>> windows. That does not sound like a faulty drive to me. Why would one
    >>>> program
    >>>> find files but not another? It does not make sense.
    >>>> Then there is also this business about the SMART program saying the
    >>>> drive is not
    >>>> a SMART drive now, how can that be? I was thinking perhaps that SMART
    >>>> stores it's
    >>>> info in a file on the drive and that file has gone missing or is
    >>>> corrupted, however I do not
    >>>> know how SMART works, apparently there is no definitive standard and
    >>>> each manufcaturer
    >>>> does it it's own way and I have no idea where this smart info is stored
    >>>> ont eh drive, I assume it
    >>>> must be stored on it somewhere.
    >>>>
    >>>> I think I will have anothe go at booting with the drivie connected, but
    >>>> I don't like
    >>>> doing that because it has means I have to power off when it becomes
    >>>> 'stuck' when trying
    >>>> to boot, but I might be able to avoid this by trying to go straight
    >>>> into the BIOS at BIOS
    >>>> and then specifying to boot from the good drive, whcih usually works.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I have managed to boot up again with the bad drive connect, but it is
    >>> rather difficult to do.
    >>> I think I can get to the boot menu if I press ESC quickly during boot up
    >>> at least it worked this
    >>> time, sometimes it does not seem to work though, maybe I was too slow
    >>> pressing ESC
    >>> and it starts doing it's SMART test, once it gets that far it seems
    >>> there is nothing you can do but
    >>> reboot, the two option F1 to exit and F2 to continue (or similar) just
    >>> lead to a black screen
    >>> with a curser top right which just seems to sit there and do nothing.
    >>> Maybe if I waited ages it might
    >>> do something but the longest I have wited is 10 minutes, which seems
    >>> along time.
    >>>
    >>> Anyway I download Active Hard disk monitor from here
    >>> http://www.disk-monitor.com/
    >>> It seems quite a useful tool, anyway on it it says SMART info is
    >>> disabled for the drive, but it
    >>> also says SMART not supported. However as I have retrieved the SMART
    >>> info for the drive
    >>> before and indeed posted it here the drive certainly does or rather
    >>> should support SMART.
    >>> I am thinking maybe there might be and option to enable or disable SMART
    >>> in the BIOS, however
    >>> it would have to do that individually for each drive as SMART works on
    >>> the other drive.
    >>> I have a feeling there will not be such and option though, I certainly
    >>> do not recall seeing one
    >>> but then I don't recall much about the BIOS at all.
    >>> I am not even sure if I cna get intot he BIOS witht he bad drive
    >>> connected but I will have to
    >>> try, I am not sure if it has an option saying BIOS, it may be that it is
    >>> under press F1 for set-up,
    >>> I will have to have a look. However I am just ruuning the drive scan
    >>> feature on this disk monitor tool
    >>> so I will wait untill that has finished, it's about 85% completed and
    >>> has found no errors which seems
    >>> to verify my suspicion that there is nothing physcally wrong with the
    >>> drive.
    >>> I will also see if I can get any info from Samsung about the SMART info
    >>> on the bad drive, but I have
    >>> a feeling I won't be able to.
    >>> Actually the drive scan has just found 4 bad blocks!!
    >>> If I click on the bad blocks it reveals a list of bad sectors within
    >>> them.
    >>> I am not sure how bad this is, there are only 4 bad blocks out of 4770
    >>> so lest than 0.1%
    >>> is that a bad drive??
    >>>

    >>
    >> I seem to have figured out how to get intot he bios and boot menu now
    >> without too
    >> much troube, which means I can keep the bad drive in and boot up fairly
    >> easilly.
    >>
    >> I went into the bios to look at the SMART setting, on the good drive I
    >> can look at
    >> the SMART info and run a SMART test, however on the bad drive it says
    >> either disabled or not supported, which I took a note of the wording.
    >> Also the screen you go to to look at the SMART status for that drive
    >> seems to
    >> hang sometimes even when you are doing nothing other than tabing through
    >> some
    >> of the options there, but not changing anything, maybe something causes
    >> it to try and
    >> access the drive and that casues it to hang.
    >> Anyhow I don't seem to be able to disable SMART tests.
    >>
    >> So not too sure what to do now, I may try to run a chkdsk on that drive,
    >> but they often
    >> take ages and sometimes just do not complete or say the test could not
    >> complete.
    >>
    >> I could also try formatting the drive and see if that helps.
    >> It could be that maybe there is a chip on the drive which is damage, the
    >> SMART chip
    >> perhaps is there is one. I noticed the IDE conector looked a bit
    >> discoloured in the centre
    >> like it had got hot or something but that's a but far fetched.
    >>
    >> If chkdsk or formatting does not clear the problem(s) I guess I can still
    >> use the drive for
    >> unimportant stuff such as recording TV stuff I would probably delete
    >> eventually anyway.

    >
    > The BIOS setting for SMART, I think the purpose of that, is for
    > the BIOS to read the SMART table during POST. If the BIOS sees
    > something bad, it is supposed to warn you at the BIOS level. It
    > is present, with the idea you get a warning as soon as possible.
    >
    > The setting does not disable SMART for while you're in Windows.
    > The setting is for determining whether the BIOS is to check
    > for dangerous indications or not, in the SMART.
    >
    > SMART requires passthru to work. Depending on the hardware
    > and driver used, there have been cases where there is no software
    > path for the SMART command to get through. That might account
    > for the monitoring software you were using, putting up such a message
    > ("Smart disabled").
    >
    > Have you tried the SMART screen (Health Tab) in HDTune ?
    > It doesn't continuously monitor health, and only reads out
    > the table of info from the disk, when the Health Tab is running.
    > Version 2.55 is free and good enough for things like the SMART info.
    >
    > http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe





    That says the drive does support SMART, it's ticked in the supported
    features anyway, but it may just know such drives shoudl support SMART.
    It does not show any SMART data though as it does for the good drive.

    It passed the quick test but I expect it wouild fail the full test.


    >
    > The disk stores data in "clusters" of sectors. If Windows does
    > integrity checking, if a bad sector is found, it should cause
    > the whole cluster to be marked off-limits. So the smallest
    > storage unit, from a hardware perspective, is a sector. But
    > for management purposes, and for performance, larger groups
    > of them are used. On my FAT32 partition, I think it's around
    > 32K per cluster or 64 sectors of 512 bytes each. One bad
    > sector, would cause the other 63 next to it to be rejected
    > as well, as far as FAT32 is concerned. Free space on the
    > disk is managed in clusters as well. So you can't really
    > allocate just 512 bytes. It was done that way, partially,
    > so any tables used to manage storage space, wouldn't
    > take as many resources.



    When I ran my scanner, Active Hard dDrive monitor, it
    had the drive diviede into about 4770 blocks of size
    50mb which multiplies out to about 250gb.
    >
    > If you were scanning at the sector level, there would be
    > millions of sectors. Take the drive capacity in bytes,
    > divide by 512 byte sectors and see how large a number
    > that is. When counted in clusters, it's a slightly
    > smaller number.



    Yes the drive scanner I have has a number of options for the check block
    size, from 1 sector 512, through 128 sectors of 64kb to 512 sectors of
    256kb.
    The scan I ran had aout 4770 blocks of 50mb, but I am not sure how that fits
    in with the previus sentence.
    The maths gets a bit confusing for me however the first block, when you
    hover on
    it says from says from sectora 1 to 102399, the last sector is number
    488,345,600,
    so they are each 1/2Kb ie 512 bytes.


    I think maybe I understand it a bit moree now, it would be impractical to
    list
    1/2 a billion sectors I suppose. Also difficult to manage a list of sectors
    so the
    system uses clusters instead.

    It does look as if onloy a small percentage of the drive has problems,
    something
    I would expect the system to cope with.


    >
    > The ATA drives have automatic sector sparing. If a sector
    > is flaky, the controller substitutes a spare sector for
    > the bad one. When an area of the disk runs out of spares,
    > that's when a CRC error will finally be reported. (As it's
    > no longer possible to make it seem like a good sector is
    > present.) When a sector is spared, that tends to slow the
    > disk down. If you see lots of "spikes" in a transfer
    > rate curve, that hints there has been a fair amount of
    > repair to the disk already. If you get to the point
    > that surface scans are masking off whole clusters,
    > then chances are the two SMART "danger parameters" I listed
    > in a previous post, are also showing non-zero raw data,
    > and the disk is "ripe".


    Well I am not too sure about what all this means, I understood chkdsk had
    ran
    through and repaired the disk, does that mean the disk is OK, I mean the
    scanner shows 4 bad blocks, so are these not being used now as they are
    marked
    as bad? I think maybe they are. Of course I can't get any SMART data, so it
    looks
    like itis not so smart after all (lol).
    One thing I can try is to see it it will boot now chkdsk has ran, I mean it
    may still
    report the SMART probelem but I might be able to continue after that is
    detected, someting
    that has not worked previusly, I really do not know what is going on there.

    Another thing is that I have to do a hard reset when in that condition ie
    power off.
    The powering off may actually be causing problems on the disk surface. I am
    thinking maybe it
    tries to run a chkdsk after that, but whatever it tries to do seems to take
    a loong time.
    Maybe I could try it overnight and see if it finally gets past what ever it
    is it is doing, however
    I could not tolerate such a wait every time I boot up, althoughh I now avoid
    that by selecting the boot menu
    at startup which lets me bypass the probems.

    So the only other thing I can think of is a reformat to see if that helps.

    I don't realy understand why the SMART stuff does not work

    I think I will probably back up the bad drive again, I don't think the last
    effort
    got everything although I have all the important stuff, but it's a bit of a
    pain to
    do as I have to piece together what I did, might be easier to do the whole
    lot
    over night, then maybe try a reformat.
    Might also try and find out a bit more about why SMART is not working but
    sounds like a lot of hard work, might be easier to admit defeat lol.

    >
    > Paul
     
    R. Giggs., Oct 27, 2012
    #40
    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. NEMISIES

    Re: System Restore won't restore WinXP Pro

    NEMISIES, Jun 27, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,438
    NEMISIES
    Jun 27, 2003
  2. Larry Hale

    System restore will no longer restore

    Larry Hale, Mar 15, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    743
    Ron Martell
    Mar 16, 2006
  3. Jimi

    System Restore won't restore

    Jimi, May 16, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    620
    ronklem
    May 17, 2006
  4. Kue2

    restore points using system restore

    Kue2, Nov 1, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    579
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Nov 1, 2005
  5. jamesstevn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,894
    jamesstevn
    Mar 10, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page