Formatting on drive wiped out when testing another drive

[Folkert Rienstra]

Howdy!

Makes one hate to think of what are you.

There are no "bios drive letters".

Well, at least that part is true.

*shrug* So make it "Drive letters assigned in the BIOS enumeration order".

BIOS does not concern itself with partitions so although there is a
relationship there is more to it than just "BIOS enumeration order".

And *ahem* I've seen several BIOSes that do use drive letters to
refer to drives.

But that is the only relationship. They use that instead of BIOS device
numbers. Has nothing to do with DOS or Windows logical drive letters
other than that there is this rather loose relationship.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

You and Ralph together are more stupid than Arnie.

Thanks Eric for that superfluous proof that you lost most if not all of
your marbles.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

We'll see...

Yup, we will indeed.

I was commenting on the 'it will fail to boot (properly),

Yes, and your comment that "it varys" was wrong in the way
that you suggested it. It will work fine in far more situations
than you suggested. (However, Win9x can get confused when
it finds itself in the same directory as on another drive and
run off that other drive, once booted).

not on the drive letter claim.

Doesn't matter.

It'll boot fine when there is just one active primary dos parti-
tion and the drive that it is on is physically moved to a different
position.

And not only in that case.
It will be fine too with 2 drives with only primaries and even with
2 drives with secondaries as long as references in registry are all
to C: or not important to Windows to be able to boot up properly.

Yes, it will certainly have the C letter.

Even that doesnt necessarily stop it booting properly,

Oh, yes it does.

all that does is affect the letters particular partions get.

Exactly.
And when the partition that Windows9x is on happens to
be that "particular partion", than the reference to it's
driveletter in MSDOS.SYS is wrong and the boot fails.

Correct,

Right, so your claim that it varys was plain wrong in the case as suggested.

for once.

Far more than you like to admit.

 

[Rod Speed]

Yup, we will indeed.

Yep, that you never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Yes, and your comment that "it varys" was
wrong in the way that you suggested it.
Nope.

It will work fine in far more situations than you suggested.

I said nothing about the situations, fool.

(However, Win9x can get confused when it finds
itself in the same directory as on another drive
and run off that other drive, once booted).

Irrelevant to what was being discussed
there, FAIL TO BOOT PROPERLY.

Doesn't matter.

Corse it does with what I actually said varys.

And not only in that case.

Never said it was. That was just ONE
EXAMPLE where it will boot properly.

It will be fine too with 2 drives with only primaries and even with
2 drives with secondaries as long as references in registry are all
to C: or not important to Windows to be able to boot up properly.
Duh.

Oh, yes it does.

Oh no it doesnt.

Exactly.
And when the partition that Windows9x is on happens
to be that "particular partion", than the reference to it's
driveletter in MSDOS.SYS is wrong and the boot fails.

I included the word NECESSARILY for a reason, ****wit.

Right, so your claim that it varys was
plain wrong in the case as suggested.

A single case just supports the VARYS, ****wit.

Far more than you like to admit.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant pathetic
excuse for a bullshit artist drug crazed fantasyland.

 

[Pennywise]

|>[email protected] wrote:
|>>
|>>>> Which *ahem* is what I said earlier.
|>>>>
|>>>> And you might want to note - if you HAD been right about it
|>>>> being just like Win9X, then you wouldn't have had to move the drive
|>>>> letters around, eh?
|>
|>> I was right
|>
|>Nope, not once. You've mangled the story even more comprehensively now.

Yes it got confusing, the first post cover'd many years and this
recent XP story is within the last 6 months. -

|>> and stand by it.
|>
|>You can stand wherever you like, changes absolutely nothing at all.
|>
|>> I guess experence beats out reading a web page.
|>
|>Guess again. It cant have happened anything like you claimed.
|>
|>And you're just plain wrong with your claim that the NT/2K/XP family
|>allocates the drive letters the same way that the DOS/9x/ME family
|>does, and its completely trivial to prove that too. Dont need a web page.
|>

So be it,

 

[JAD]

Howdy!

Mike

You didn't read all the messages, did you?

I did now and I see what your pullin....sorry i fell into it....there are
many situations in which drive letter assignmeants get disturbed in XP or
DOS. Boot partitions for one.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Howdy!



Err - Pennywise? You ever see a 9X OS running with NTFS partitions?

You've got it backwards. AND -

XP will happily put the drive letter in the boot blocks for a FAT32 partition also,
when it a) formats it or b) when you reassign the drive letters in Disk Management.

Oh? Never heard of that before. Any reference to that?
AFAIK only LDM records driveletter info outside of Windows registry and it's not
in the partition bootblocks.

HOWEVER - If that partition is formatted in a 9X OS, then UNTIL you
touch it with Disk Manager, it stays in the "Oh, look - here's an open drive
letter. Let's stuff it in there!" mode.

Which *ahem* is what I said earlier.

You did? Must have missed that too.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

You've not had much real life experience with the NT class OSes,
especially XP.

Because, as anyone who works with it knows, It Does Not Work Like That.

Well, it can - if a) all the logical drives were formatted first with FAT32,
and b) nobody's EVERY run Disk Management to handle anything.

Erm, so why would mountmanager mount them DOS/Win9x style -driveletter wise-
if *not* formatted through WinXP and mount them differently when created and
formatted through WinXP? And what's the point of having a drive signature on
the drive in combination with registry entries detailing the partition drive letters
if the drive letters are already stored in the partition bootblocks as well.

But if EITHER is wrong (i.e., the partitioning and formatting was done by XP,
OR Disk Manager was ever run to remap, say, an optical drive),

then it gets a persistent drive letter written in the PARTITION'S BOOT BLOCK.

The information I *did* find didn't say that. It didn't make any mention of that. (On
the other hand, neither did it for how exactly it stores the info in the registry either).
Presumably partition drive letters are stored/recognized in combination with a drive
signature stored in the MBR (sector 0).

As is WELL documented by Microsoft and others.

Maybe so but then why can't I google that up if it is so well documented.

Keep this up, and you'll look like ever more and anon someone who
doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.

It would appear that you have the same problem, gaging some of the reactions.

Otherwise, please explain why so many XP machines get first logical
partition C, first optical D, and the added HD's primary partition as E ...

Or why removing the USB card readers doesn't automagically make an
E: or F: boot partition C: ...

According to the information I *could* find, due to registration in the
Windows registry and in combination with a signature in the MBR.

 

[David Maynard]

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

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

 

[Ralph Wade Phillips]

Management.

Oh? Never heard of that before. Any reference to that?
AFAIK only LDM records driveletter info outside of Windows registry and it's not
in the partition bootblocks.

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

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

You did? Must have missed that too.

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

RwP

 

[David Maynard]

Yep.



Its a coincidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

<multiple snips to cut down the BS>

You added more bullshit.

Nope.

A "coincidence." <chuckle>

Having fun child ?

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

Irrelevant to whether drive letter persistence is the problem.

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

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

YOU get to spell out when that approach doesnt work.

THATS how it works.

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

YOU made that claim.

YOU get to substantiate that claim.

THATS how it works.

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

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

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

Irrelevant to whether drive persistence is the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

And have fun explaining how come you can make the
original drive visible to XP again after the first boot
of the clone with impunity. Clearly drive letter persistence
doesnt matter THEN.

 

[Rod Speed]

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

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

 

[David Maynard]

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

But I am able to make new whole sentences.

 

[David Maynard]

You added more bullshit.

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


<snip of Rod Speed nonsense>

 

[Rod Speed]

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


<snip of Rod Speed nonsense>

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

 

[Rod Speed]

But I am able to make new whole sentences.

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

 

[John Doe]

But I am able to make new whole sentences.

Even different sentences for the exact same reply.

 

[David Maynard]

Even different sentences for the exact same reply.

I see it exceeded your comprehension abilities.

 

[John Doe]

I see it exceeded your comprehension abilities.

To see you actually snip a couple hundred lines of useless text in
one of your replies above has me pleasantly baffled.

Good boy.