Spinrite

[Joep]

Thanks.

 

[Joep]

"Joep" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Hardly original as always ...

Yup.

Indeed, YUP. Thanks to DiskPatch being facilitator to at least to be able to
attempt logical repairs.

Right, DiskPatch had nothing to do with the repair, be that
the bad sectors on the original drive nor the logical errors
on the clone drive. It only copied the drive to another, strip-
ping possible data that may have helped in recovering the drive.

DiskPatch being facilitator to at least to be able to make logical repairs.
Note that OP's client is actually USING the drive cloned by DiskPatch.

Spinrite unmistakably did, but because of further logical
damage it is unclear how much it contributed positively to
the logical repair that was needed beyond that.

This is interesting as you will claim the oposite later on.

Based on my own experience of late I know that files can be
rescued even without FATs, and that based on that, FATs can
even be restored without ever cloning the drive to another one.
Svend's utilities are capable of restoring a drive without ever
cloning it. One of Svend's Fat repair utilities would have had
the same result as SpinRite by copying a good fat copy sector
over a bad one.

Svend himself suggested cloning the drive made sense. Copying a bad FAT over
a good one can be done with DiskPatch as well.

Cloning a drive has nothing to do with repair. A cloning utility
is the tool for those who totally mistrust what they are doing.

Bull shit. In fact any prof data recovery engineer will *ALWAYS* clone a
disk first.

It would be the day that you had to buy another harddrive in
order to be able to run a defrag on it because it shouldn't be
trusted to do it's job properly and you had to clone it first.

We are talking repairing a disk here NOT maintenance, anyway, anyone
defragging a disk without a proper backup is taking a risk. You're arguments
stink and do not stand ground.

Which should be read as "gave about equally _bad_ results", not
contributable to SpinRite nor DiskPatch. For a "good" result no
logical fixing should have been necessary in the case of SpinRite.
No hard conclusions can be made whether SpinRite didn't do any-
thing useful to the logical repair as neither did DiskPatch.

Nope, 'equal results' describes it very well, qualifying the results is a
different matter. BTW you did make hard conclusions just a few lines ago,
now you say they can't ne made.

And the same would have happened with IBMs DFT.

Indeed. I never said it couldn't

Or using Svend's Findbad.

Can only be used by more experienced users. I never said it couldn't

Or using a diskeditor to write over the defective sectors.

Can only be done by even more experinced users. I never said it couldn't

Or let Scandisk sync the FATs as part of the repair.

Scandisk won't do this in case of bad sectors which was the reason for this
thread, bad sectors that is.

Even doing totally nothing might result in that socalled "minor" damage.
Even repairing one file can make Scandisk sync the FATs and make all
FAT bad sectors disappear in one swoop. That same unexpected behaviour
may well have attributed to why additional logical repair was needed.

This in reply to what? Or just an unrelated brianfart (No, NOT original, but
you using it ain't original either!)?

No, it doesn't. Not in comparison with retries.
And time is what you have plenty of and is your friend if you want
as much as possible of your data back in as conveniant a manner.

Time by itself wasn't the main point, wasting time on poor results was.

Malloot.

Over kinderachtig gesproken ....

No, I was dead serious, based it on your own information even.

I never said anything about I was researching or not. If you read things
that are not there I must come to the conclusion you are experiencing one of
your phychotic episodes.

Be careful of what you wish for.
Take a good look at yourself, Rodney van Steen.

You're insulting me, or Rodney, or both. I consider it a weakness when it is
your only defense to start comparing people to others.


Anyway, the clone function of DiskPatch is designed to do exactly what OP
has been using it for, clone a disk by transfering all readable sectors to
another disk, nothing more, nothing less. When OP mentions that using this
method he got similar reuslts, and the same anount of data recovered in the
end, as using a in my opinion over hyped tool as Spinrite then I think to
myself that this is cool.

Jij zou 's wat minder achterdochtig moeten zijn.
't Was bedoeld als een veer in je hoed. Als een aanmoediging voor
mensen die serieus bezig zijn met hun vak. Blijkelijk heb ik me zwaar
in je vergist. Wat is dat toch voor een kinderachtig debiel gedrag!
Als ik jou was zou ik 's even heel goed nadenken voor je op deze weg
doorgaat.

Ik denk dat JIJ degene bent die de toon heeft gezet en ben daarom tot de
conclusie gekomen dat ik me in JOU heb vergist. Als het je bedoeling is
veren in hoeden te steken (welke altijd welkom zijn, zo ijdel ben ik nou ook
wel weer) denk ik dat je er erg slecht in geslaagd bent om dat over te
brengen.

JIJ zou je ook eens kunnen afvragen of JIJ je misschien niet onhandig hebt
uitgedrukt en een mogelijke deel oorzaak bent van kinderachtig gedrad van
BEIDE kanten ... Je moet nu niet ineens de 'wijste' uit gaan hangen en mij
aanzetten tot zelf reflectie. Als je echt wijs bent doe je eerst aan zelf
reflectie.

Ik *probeer* nooit de indruk te wekken dat ik alles weet, ik weet dat ik
niet alles weet. Bijvoorbeeld mbt Spinrite was mijn insteek me af te vragen
WAT het nu eigenlijk deed. Als ik op GRC de Spinrite info lees, kan ik een
gevoel van achterdocht inderdaad niet onderdrukken.

De clone functie van DiskPatch is erg eenvouding en BEWUST eenvouding
gehouden gebasseerd op ervaringen met data recovery tools die claimen een
hoop hocus pocus uit te halen, maar GEEN betere resultaten geven dan een
simpele 1 op 1 copy. Als langs deze eenvoudige weg bijna gelijke resultaten
geboekt worden wat betreft ge-recoverde data met een in mijn ogen 'gehypt'
product, dan is DAT de veer in mijn hoed en merk ik op 'cool'.

DiskPatch biedt mensen op deze manier een relatief eenvoudige oplossing in
scenario's zoals die van de original poster. Ik claim geen 'hocus pocus', ik
maak het erg obvious dat DiskPatch NIETS anders doet dan alle sectoren die
gelezen kunnen worden overzetten naar een andere schijf hetgeen VAAK
omstandigheden creeert waarin data gerecoverd kan worden. En DAT is PRECIES
waar OP DiskPatch voor gebruikt heeft.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Hardly original as always ...

EXACTLY as original (childish) as your Rod Speed antics below, in the next line.

Indeed, YUP. Thanks to DiskPatch being facilitator to at least to be able to
attempt logical repairs.

Which worked fine after SpinRite too.
And nowhere did OP mention that repairs couldn't be done on the
original drive too. That possibility or impossibility was never covered.

DiskPatch being facilitator to at least to be able to make logical repairs.

That is a yet to be confirmed claim. OP never mentioned that repairs couldn't
be made without other measures. You may be right but you are running ahead.

Note that OP's client is actually USING the drive cloned by DiskPatch.

So what?

This is interesting as you will claim the oposite later on.

No I don't. Just wishful thinking on your part.

Svend himself suggested cloning the drive made sense. Copying
a bad FAT over a good one can be done with DiskPatch as well.

That's not the same.

Bull shit. In fact any prof data recovery engineer will *ALWAYS*
clone a disk first.

A safeguard against terminal stupidity that never hurts.

We are talking repairing a disk here NOT maintenance,

Same mechanism.
Juggling sectors around and completely rearranging FATs.
As riskfull if not riskier than relatively small repairs.

anyway, anyone defragging a disk without a proper backup is
taking a risk. You're arguments stink and do not stand ground.


Nope, 'equal results' describes it very well,

Too bad that he confirmed 'about equal results',
words that YOU put in his mouth when earlier he said
"The result was about the same" ... "a little different"
Stop the posturing.

qualifying the results is a different matter.

BTW you did make hard conclusions just a few lines ago,

About SpinRite making the drive usable again which DiskPatch had
nothing to do with whatsoever.

now you say they can't ne made.

Different matters. You are posturing again.

Indeed. I never said it couldn't

But you were implying it by hyping DiskPatch.

Can only be used by more experienced users.

As if DiskPatch is a ball in the park.

I never said it couldn't

Indeed you didn't. Instead you hyped DiskPatch.

Can only be done by even more experinced users.

No more experience, probably less than with DiskPatch.

I never said it couldn't

Instead you hyped DiskPatch.

Scandisk won't do this in case of bad sectors which was the reason for this
thread, bad sectors that is.

Maybe it is, but the OP never mentioned that.

This in reply to what?

OP mentioning that "additional logical repair was needed".
What else?

Or just an unrelated brianfart (No, NOT original, but
you using it ain't original either!)?

Yeah, and who started that, Rodney van Steen?

Time by itself wasn't the main point, wasting time on poor results was.

Even poor results can recover *several* files that can't be recovered
without those "poor" results, when bad sectors are in FATs.

Over kinderachtig gesproken ....

Posturing that I typed a line twice when I clearly didn't, *that* is childish.

I never said anything about I was researching or not.

Indeed you didn't. You said that the new version would do retries and you
also say else where that you don't believe in it. Which is rather strange.
So was being kind by implying that you were still "researching" it.
No reason to fly off the handle, like you did.

If you read things that are not there

Funny that you must say that .....

I must come to the conclusion you are experiencing one of your phychotic
episodes.

Stil playing the troll, are we? How's that mirror, is it working for you?

You're insulting me, or Rodney, or both.

Like your Rod imitation wasn't meant as an insult by itself.

I consider it a weakness when it is your only defense to start
comparing people to others.

You started the insults, you reap what you sow.

Anyway, the clone function of DiskPatch is designed to do exactly what OP
has been using it for, clone a disk by transfering all readable sectors to
another disk, nothing more, nothing less.

Thanks for confirming what I said all along and (you) then started a row about.

When OP mentions that using this method he got similar reuslts, and the
same anount of data recovered in the end, as using a in my opinion over
hyped tool as Spinrite then I think to myself that this is cool.

Or similarly overhyped. And that is all that I objected too. It was a totally
harmless comment until you had to go fly off the handle and get insulting.

At least SpinRite did exactly what it was thought to do, repair the drive.
Unfortunately it could not be confirmed whether it did that without losing
any bad sector data. The data that was lost after the logical repair may
or may_not have been cause related, direct or indirect, to the bad sectors.

 

[Joep]

EXACTLY as original (childish) as your Rod Speed antics below, in the next

line.

I was NOT giving a Rod imitation. If you interpret 'you should be able to
better' a Rod trademark than that is obsesive. You shpould be able to do
better.

Which worked fine after SpinRite too.

I never contradicted that Spinrite worked.

And nowhere did OP mention that repairs couldn't be done on the
original drive too. That possibility or impossibility was never covered.
repairs.

That is a yet to be confirmed claim. OP never mentioned that repairs couldn't
be made without other measures. You may be right but you are running ahead.

So what?

So it aided in the recovery.

No I don't. Just wishful thinking on your part.

Read again , you do.

That's not the same.

As what?

A safeguard against terminal stupidity that never hurts.

So you now admit that working on a clone makes sense, good.

Same mechanism.
Juggling sectors around and completely rearranging FATs.
As riskfull if not riskier than relatively small repairs.

You're even more stupid than I thought.

Same still applies.

Too bad that he confirmed 'about equal results',
words that YOU put in his mouth when earlier he said
"The result was about the same" ... "a little different"
Stop the posturing.

No, I did not put in his mouth, those were HIS words! I simply asked if I
read this right. I did while YOU didn't.

About SpinRite making the drive usable again which DiskPatch had
nothing to do with whatsoever.


Different matters. You are posturing again.

Ja, ja, lul ... NOT different matters!

But you were implying it by hyping DiskPatch.

I said 'cool' ... I think it is cool and I said that, that's NOT hyping.

As if DiskPatch is a ball in the park.



Indeed you didn't. Instead you hyped DiskPatch.
Nope


No more experience, probably less than with DiskPatch.


Instead you hyped DiskPatch.
Nope


Maybe it is, but the OP never mentioned that.

It is, not maybe, it is. That's the whole point that you don't get. It is
exactly this why DiskPatch did facilitate repair on the cloned drive. It is
exactly this why it makes sense to clone a drive. It is exactly this why it
makes sense to accept minor logical damage because of not reading bad
sectors.

OP mentioning that "additional logical repair was needed".
What else?

So you don't reply to me here, but to OP, maybe use a different message for
that.

Yeah, and who started that, Rodney van Steen?

Your obsession with Rod.

Even poor results can recover *several* files that can't be recovered
without those "poor" results, when bad sectors are in FATs.

Nope, the poor results hardly ever aid in the recovery of files, that's why
it is a waste of time. What so difficult about this concept?

Posturing that I typed a line twice when I clearly didn't, *that* is childish.

Indeed you didn't. You said that the new version would do retries and you
also say else where that you don't believe in it. Which is rather strange.
So was being kind by implying that you were still "researching" it.
No reason to fly off the handle, like you did.


Funny that you must say that .....

Who are you talking to, those voices in your head again?

Stil playing the troll, are we? How's that mirror, is it working for you?

Nope, I am simply replying to your post

Like your Rod imitation wasn't meant as an insult by itself.

No, it wasn't. Since you can never tell if it was intended as such, you'll
have to take my word for it.

You started the insults, you reap what you sow.

'Pain in the but alias aambei' isn't an insult.

Thanks for confirming what I said all along and (you) then started a row about.

I do not have any problems confirming this, glad I could please you. You
want me to it again then?

Or similarly overhyped. And that is all that I objected too. It was a totally
harmless comment until you had to go fly off the handle and get insulting.

OP mentioned that DiskPatch aided in the recovery. I said 'cool'. That's it,
now is that hyping?

At least SpinRite did exactly what it was thought to do, repair the drive.

So did DiskPatch, it was meant to clone a drive, skipping unreadable
sectors, and it did.

Unfortunately it could not be confirmed whether it did that without losing
any bad sector data. The data that was lost after the logical repair may
or may_not have been cause related, direct or indirect, to the bad sectors.

voor gebruikt heeft.