Original CD won't 'restore' system ??

[Nil]

Yes I know ignorant people like yourself won't believe. But I know
how it really happens and are more than willing to show anybody
who wants to learn the same thing.

Please prove it by duplicating the problem and document the process.

Until then, I tend to trust the experience of many thousands of people
who use Live Linux disks on Windows computers without incident over the
unsupported delusion of one newsgroup kook.

 

[BillW50]

In Nil typed:

Please prove it by duplicating the problem and document the process.

I have many times. How many times do I have to do this? In the past I
have found it doesn't matter. Less intelligent people just won't get it
anyway.

Until then, I tend to trust the experience of many thousands of people
who use Live Linux disks on Windows computers without incident over
the unsupported delusion of one newsgroup kook.

Yes I have heard this BS many times.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
~ Albert Einstein

And I admit most people will and could use Live Linux without problems.
No problems there at all. The problem I have is the claim that Linux
Live doesn't touch your installed Windows. Now I really have a problem
and I have documented this many times in the past.

But I also documented problems for two years straight with OS/2 v3 too
and nobody believed me either. And when the truth finally came out, I
never got credit or anything and IBM acted like they found it before
anybody else did. Yeah pure BS, but what are you going to do?

 

[Nil]

I have many times. How many times do I have to do this?

At least once. I have seen no evidence from you, just an unsupported
claim. Show me the money or shut up.

In the past I have found it doesn't matter. Less intelligent
people just won't get it anyway.

Yes, we know, you being the Supreme Intelligence and all. We humans
should have faith in those who claim to be more highly evolved. The
scientific process is so... overrated and boring.

And I admit most people will and could use Live Linux without
problems. No problems there at all. The problem I have is the
claim that Linux Live doesn't touch your installed Windows. Now I
really have a problem and I have documented this many times in the
past.

Where? Please cite. Surely you still have your documentation... if it
exists. A repeat of your unsupported claim is not enough.

But I also documented problems for two years straight with OS/2 v3
too and nobody believed me either.

Irrelevant, except to stoke your megalomania.

 

[glee]

In glee typed:

Yes I know ignorant people like yourself won't believe. But I know how
it really happens and are more than willing to show anybody who wants
to learn the same thing. But it is common for ignorant people like
yourself to act this way.
snip

Yeah, right.... you would be happy to show us except you won't. You
have not supplied any evidence at all, despite more than one person in
this thread asking for it. As for Paul, he has chimed into this thread
and he hasn't backed your claim either.... quite the opposite.
I'm sorry but you are being the ignorant person once again. I asked
nicely for some proof of your claim at the onset, and you've blathered
without supplying one iota of proof or documentation of the claim.
Enjoy yourself proclaiming your "superiority" to everyone else here....
sadly you are proving otherwise.

 

[BillW50]

In Nil typed:

At least once. I have seen no evidence from you, just an unsupported
claim. Show me the money or shut up.

Oh! Now you are talking my language Nil. How much money do you want to
bet? I am not much of a better except for a sure thing.

Yes, we know, you being the Supreme Intelligence and all. We humans
should have faith in those who claim to be more highly evolved. The
scientific process is so... overrated and boring.

No Nil. I make mistakes like everybody else I know does. The difference
is that I learn from my mistakes and continue on. Most people can't
bother learning.

Where? Please cite. Surely you still have your documentation... if it
exists. A repeat of your unsupported claim is not enough.

I am pretty sure I still have what Paul supported what I said back in
2009. Although I didn't look for it and I am willing to dig for it and
pull it out as a trump card if I have too.

Irrelevant, except to stoke your megalomania.

I don't even know what megalomania means. But if it means the following
then I agree. As this has been my experience totally.

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
~ Arthur Schopenhauer -- German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

Megalomania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania

Oh man. that is really sick! Sounds a lot like you Nil. :-(

 

[BillW50]

In glee typed:

glee typed:


Yeah, right.... you would be happy to show us except you won't.

I have many times in the past.

You have not supplied any evidence at all, despite more than one
person in this thread asking for it.

Anybody with half a brain can check the archives.

As for Paul, he has chimed into this thread and he hasn't backed your
claim either.... quite the opposite.

Paul may not recall, but I do. Paul is one of the more intelligent
people that I know here. I trust him far more than I trust people like
you.

I'm sorry but you are being the ignorant person once again. I asked
nicely for some proof of your claim at the onset, and you've blathered
without supplying one iota of proof or documentation of the claim.
Enjoy yourself proclaiming your "superiority" to everyone else
here.... sadly you are proving otherwise.

I said it many times in the past and it means nothing. Saying it again
will also mean nothing no doubt to stupid people like yourself. But it
has been all documented in the past and in the archives. Thus why should
I repeatedly repeat myself when stupid people keep asking for the same
things over and over again?

 

[glee]

In glee typed:

I have many times in the past.


Anybody with half a brain can check the archives.


Paul may not recall, but I do. Paul is one of the more intelligent
people that I know here. I trust him far more than I trust people like
you.


I said it many times in the past and it means nothing. Saying it again
will also mean nothing no doubt to stupid people like yourself. But it
has been all documented in the past and in the archives. Thus why
should
I repeatedly repeat myself when stupid people keep asking for the same
things over and over again?

Oh get over yourself. I HAVE looked in archives and all that has shown
up so far is your own statement, with no proof that the Live CD was even
responsible, and no one supporting your claim that the Live CD writes to
the hard drive by default in any circumstances. Now provide your
"proof" and corroboration, or STFU. You keep stating Paul verified your
finding that Linux Live CD with default settings wrote to your hard
drive, that it uses the Windows swap file on the hard drive, etc. So,
show this supposed verification! All you keep doing is calling everyone
ignorant or stupid, who asks you to back up your claim.... not unlike
many of the posts of yours I have come across in the archives, where you
call posters who disagree with you "ignorant, stupid, liars, and
frauds". The time you have spent here calling everyone who disagrees
with you stupid, you could have already proven your claim.... but
apparently you simply can't supply proof.

 

[Nil]

I am pretty sure I still have what Paul supported what I said back
in 2009. Although I didn't look for it and I am willing to dig for
it and pull it out as a trump card if I have too.

Put up or shut up. It must be a thorough test, it must show without
doubt that a Linux Live boot changed data on the hard disk with no
direction from you, and you must be able to reproduce the results.

I don't even know what megalomania means.

Look it up.

 

[Robert Macy]

InRobert Macy typed:


Oh that could be a huge problem. Did the machine originally have a built
in optical drive? As I was working on a client's Alienware M9700 machine
and it had the restore discs and the internal optical drive was bad. I
was going to replace the drive, but I wanted to install Windows first to
see what else was needed. So I hooked up an external USB drive and tried
to install. And I ran into much of the same problems that you did.

The retail versions of XP require SP2 or SP3 to install from USB.
Earlier builds will not install. Although sadly, not all OEM versions
will work correctly from USB, even if SP2 at least. I had to replace the
internal DVD drive before I could get it to install. And it was XP SP2.
And your problem sounds very much like what I had ran across.

This was the 'built-in' CD Drive. Just to check I swapped out to
another drive, same symptom so I assumed problem not in reading the
disk, nor in the drive itself. I went through and re-seated all the
cabling to the disks, but that didn't seem to change things. I'm
beginning to believe Glen Ventura's comments "WTF are you trying to
use a 'sick' HD for?" That, coupled with summer heat here in AZ, I;m
beginning to think the system, or the HD, doesn't like being non-
office temperature 88 vs 66. Even in CA, we kept the office around
84+, which was difficult to do.

 

[Robert Macy]

Put your reading glasses on!  Robert said "No <COMMA> built-in CD
Drive", meaning No he isn't using a USB optical, he's using an internal
optical.
You are apparently reading it "No built-in CD Drive".  Punctuation is
there for a reason.  Eats shoots and leaves... Eats, shoots, and
leaves..

Lighten up! Someday curiosity will outstrip vanity and I'll wear my
reading glasses more.

I'm beginning to believe your comment about using the HD, but could be
the driver chips on the motherboard, too.

 

[Paul]

This was the 'built-in' CD Drive. Just to check I swapped out to
another drive, same symptom so I assumed problem not in reading the
disk, nor in the drive itself. I went through and re-seated all the
cabling to the disks, but that didn't seem to change things. I'm
beginning to believe Glen Ventura's comments "WTF are you trying to
use a 'sick' HD for?" That, coupled with summer heat here in AZ, I;m
beginning to think the system, or the HD, doesn't like being non-
office temperature 88 vs 66. Even in CA, we kept the office around
84+, which was difficult to do.

If that's the case, use HDTune (or any other utility that can check
disk drive temperature), and verify you aren't actually running
the hard drive at too high a temperature. For a number of years,
hard drives have had a thermistor added to them, for temperature
monitoring at the drive level.

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

Here is an example screenshot, showing the little temperature readout
near the top of HDTune. This shows "30C", so musta been a summer day.

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/842/500gb3500418ascomposite.gif

If the drive is showing higher than 50C, I'd be concerned.

On some computer cases, the hard drive is in an air cooling
"dead zone". If you expect to keep the hard drive running,
it helps to arrange cooling air from outside, to blow on the
hard drive. My current computer has a modification, to do
just that. A fan mounted externally in an aluminum frame, blows
through the hard drive slots. That helps my hard drive
temperature, exactly track room temperature. (Because the hard
drive cannot be heated up by other stuff inside the computer.)

Operating FDB hard drive motors, at high temperatures, tends
to force the lubricant out of them over time. And that can
shorten the life of the drive.

Of all the items inside the computer case, the hard drive
temp is the one I take the most seriously. It's the one
most at risk. Some commercial computer cases have that
"what were they thinking" kind of air cooling system design
inside. Which may occasionally need to be fixed to give decent
performance. Sometimes the solution may be as simple, as
moving the drive to one of the other storage trays, that
gets more cooling.

Paul

 

[Robert Macy]

If that's the case, use HDTune (or any other utility that can check
disk drive temperature), and verify you aren't actually running
the hard drive at too high a temperature. For a number of years,
hard drives have had a thermistor added to them, for temperature
monitoring at the drive level.

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

Here is an example screenshot, showing the little temperature readout
near the top of HDTune. This shows "30C", so musta been a summer day.

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/842/500gb3500418ascomposite.gif

If the drive is showing higher than 50C, I'd be concerned.

On some computer cases, the hard drive is in an air cooling
"dead zone". If you expect to keep the hard drive running,
it helps to arrange cooling air from outside, to blow on the
hard drive. My current computer has a modification, to do
just that. A fan mounted externally in an aluminum frame, blows
through the hard drive slots. That helps my hard drive
temperature, exactly track room temperature. (Because the hard
drive cannot be heated up by other stuff inside the computer.)

Operating FDB hard drive motors, at high temperatures, tends
to force the lubricant out of them over time. And that can
shorten the life of the drive.

Of all the items inside the computer case, the hard drive
temp is the one I take the most seriously. It's the one
most at risk. Some commercial computer cases have that
"what were they thinking" kind of air cooling system design
inside. Which may occasionally need to be fixed to give decent
performance. Sometimes the solution may be as simple, as
moving the drive to one of the other storage trays, that
gets more cooling.

    Paul

Thank you for that utility!Screenshot looks like it runs under WinXP.
Hmmmm.....chicken/egg, cart/horse

The HD is bolted tightly into the frame so that's the heat sink for
it. Should track the temp of the chassis, but then again.

Good idea to keep things cool every 10C shortens life by 2:1, at least
statistically halves the MTBF.

 

[glee]

This was the 'built-in' CD Drive. Just to check I swapped out to
another drive, same symptom so I assumed problem not in reading the
disk, nor in the drive itself. I went through and re-seated all the
cabling to the disks, but that didn't seem to change things. I'm
beginning to believe Glen Ventura's comments "WTF are you trying to
use a 'sick' HD for?" That, coupled with summer heat here in AZ, I;m
beginning to think the system, or the HD, doesn't like being non-
office temperature 88 vs 66. Even in CA, we kept the office around
84+, which was difficult to do.

FYI... I didn't say "WTF".... I said something like Why on earth are you
using a damaged drive for your system files.

 

[Paul]

If he is, he's talking about something completely different than
everybody else is, even though the subject has been clarified several
times. We've very specific about it being a "Live Linux" bootup disk,
not an install-to-hard-disk situation.


I've got on computer running one of those Wubi installations, and
Unbuntu is presented as a choice by Windows boot manager. This is my
Linux play toy, not something I used day-to-day.


Yes. That's what I've been trying to get across.

I just tried setting up a Wubi based install here, and no dramatics.

First, I had to pull the network cable, so Wubi would recognize
the .iso file with the 700MB of install files on it (located in
the same folder as wubi.exe). If you leave the network connected
for the first phase, it instead starts the 700MB download for itself
(with no confirmation of what version you want to install). I didn't
want any installs with Unity, so dropped a 10.04LTS .iso file into
my wubi folder. The wubi.exe was extracted from the .iso, with 7ZIP.

It prepares a couple ~4GB files as storage space. I told it, it
could have up to 8GB, and my Windows file system is FAT32. So it
knew not to make containers larger than 4GB each. It made three
containers (for loopback mounting) with its own division of labor
for each one.

It copies the files from the 700MB .iso, into one of the containers.
Looks like the files are uncompressed at that point.

Then, it reboots, and it has meddled with boot.ini, so the system
is now dual-boot on one disk. I select Ubuntu from the Windows boot
menu, and then the installer continues on with the installation.
The installer at that point, could be the regular Ubuntu installer.

The files then seem to be copied one more time, presumably from
the uncompressed store that was created on the first pass.

The usual unnecessary downloads from Ubuntu (stuff not on the CD),
and after about 15 minutes of screwing around, it's done. I'd
plugged the network cable back in, so the network would be
available after the first reboot.

On the next reboot, selecting ubuntu again from the Windows boot
menu, it comes up in the 10.04LTS desktop (which is the file I
located next to wubi.exe). The desktop seems to work. And the
one partition I gave it (a precise copy of my normal WinXP partition),
it has mounted the Windows file system as /host.

So really, nothing bad happened.

The wiki for the usage of wubi.exe, warns about "dirty shutdowns".
It says people who become frustrated, and switch off the power to
the computer in mid session, are their own worst enemy. The article
also mentions you can go to "found.000" in Windows, and sometimes,
your damaged Ubuntu containers can be found there. Since nothing
froze or acted up during this short test, there were no fireworks
to report. And no need to press the reset button or the like.

I can think of a case, where "pressing of the reset button" would
be a natural user response. Canonical was clever enough, on their
servers, to turn off ICMP services. Leaving the servers with a
"black hole" problem. Then, what happens is, the Ubuntu installer
starts downloading additional packages from the Canonical servers,
and the process gets stuck at exactly the same place each time. I
had that problem with native installs to a separate hard drive. I
found a thread with a ton of people complaining about the same thing.
One contributer to the thread, types three words in his message
"change your MTU", with no explanation or anything. OK, so I'm reading
the thread, and considering all the possibilities. And after about
another ten minutes of reading, it dawns on me "Oh, shit, a black hole
problem...". That's what the "change your MTU" contribution meant.
I've dealt with that once before, and changing the MTU did indeed
allow the install to finish.

Now, if you were in "WUBI country", and that bug came up, then
what would you do ? The thing is stuck, you need to escape, everything
is dead (because the kernel is deadlocked at that point). Not even
control-alt-delete works. On a native file system install, no
problem, your ext4 probably needs cleaning on the next reboot, or
if like me, you restart the install, you've probably formatted the
thing again anyway. So no damage done. But if you were doing that from
WUBI and that happened, now the damage could be to the Windows file
system (as a dirty shutdown). Either the file system, or the containers
being used by WUBI, would be candidates for damage. And no way for
me to predict, how likely that would be.

So that's the only exposure that comes to mind. The "black hole" problem
had been around for a while (complaint thread was super-long).

Anyway, I didn't get stuck, so I presume there isn't a black hole
exposure if you're installing 10.04LTS (which is apparently still
supported package-manager wise, until some time in 2013?). Since
Canonical has more than one server for things like this, it's
really hard for me to guess which server had the problem, and
causes the install process to deadlock.

Paul

 

[Robert Macy]

FYI... I didn't say "WTF".... I said something like Why on earth are you
using a damaged drive for your system files.

APOLOGIES!!!

Your EXACT comment was, "Why on earth would you install Windows on the
faulty drive in the first place??"

I think that upon reading your comment I chided myself and attributed
my own words to your sentiment.

As I read your comment, came to mind: during my private pilot days,
one day when I went out with my instructor for some specific new
training, during run-up just before take off, the engine stalled,
spluttered, and then ran again ok. I finished the run up and started
out onto the runway for takeoff and my instructor startled I went to
runway NOT to taxiway, said, "You weren't really planning on taking
off were you?" as we taxiied back to the hangars for the mechanics to
find out why the engine had faltered. Using a faltering HD means is
less risky.

 

[glee]

APOLOGIES!!!

Your EXACT comment was, "Why on earth would you install Windows on the
faulty drive in the first place??"

I think that upon reading your comment I chided myself and attributed
my own words to your sentiment.

As I read your comment, came to mind: during my private pilot days,
one day when I went out with my instructor for some specific new
training, during run-up just before take off, the engine stalled,
spluttered, and then ran again ok. I finished the run up and started
out onto the runway for takeoff and my instructor startled I went to
runway NOT to taxiway, said, "You weren't really planning on taking
off were you?" as we taxiied back to the hangars for the mechanics to
find out why the engine had faltered. Using a faltering HD means is
less risky.

WTF! lol...

 

[Robert Macy]

WTF!  lol...

yes, and 'F' stands for 'fondue'

 

[Robert Macy]

WTF!  lol...

Failed same way ?? again today comes up saying missing \system

This time I ran Scandisk on both C: and E: with no errors, but after
running that the CD seemed to be happier,

this time the CD got all the way to the repair console, but asked for
number of installation ?!

What is that?! It's the installation that failed, the one I'm using,
what does the 'number' of the installation mean?

just hitting enter with blank response did nothing.

 

[Paul]

Failed same way ?? again today comes up saying missing \system

This time I ran Scandisk on both C: and E: with no errors, but after
running that the CD seemed to be happier,

this time the CD got all the way to the repair console, but asked for
number of installation ?!

What is that?! It's the installation that failed, the one I'm using,
what does the 'number' of the installation mean?

just hitting enter with blank response did nothing.

The repair disc scans for OS installations. If it sees more
than one with the right ingredients, it will show them in a menu.

To give an example, I have WinXP on one disk, and Win2K on the other disk.

If I insert the WinXP CD and fire up the repair console, it will scan and
find both installs, and ask me to type a number to select the correct one.
Trouble is, there is no external information to specify which is which.
You can't rely on the "drive letter" it uses.

1) C:\Blah
2) D:\Blah

I have a 50:50 chance of typing the correct number. The right answer
in my case, might have been "2", even though the install is called "C:"
when that OS is running.

After you make the selection, you'll be asked for the administrator password.
Since my two installs have different passwords, that's how I can ensure the
correct one is selected. If the password doesn't work, it means I selected
the wrong one. If I select the wrong one, I end up rebooting and trying again.

The tool is dumb - it doesn't know what failed. It doesn't even know
the difference between WinXP and Win2K. It's up to you to guess which
is which, and enter the correct administrator password.

Paul

 

[Robert Macy]

The repair disc scans for OS installations. If it sees more
than one with the right ingredients, it will show them in a menu.

To give an example, I have WinXP on one disk, and Win2K on the other disk..

If I insert the WinXP CD and fire up the repair console, it will scan and
find both installs, and ask me to type a number to select the correct one..
Trouble is, there is no external information to specify which is which.
You can't rely on the "drive letter" it uses.

1) C:\Blah
2) D:\Blah

I have a 50:50 chance of typing the correct number. The right answer
in my case, might have been "2", even though the install is called "C:"
when that OS is running.

After you make the selection, you'll be asked for the administrator password.
Since my two installs have different passwords, that's how I can ensure the
correct one is selected. If the password doesn't work, it means I selected
the wrong one. If I select the wrong one, I end up rebooting and trying again.

The tool is dumb - it doesn't know what failed. It doesn't even know
the difference between WinXP and Win2K. It's up to you to guess which
is which, and enter the correct administrator password.

    Paul

AFter running scandisk and leaving the info in the drives, it went
further and listed the ONLY install WinXP Professional etc, then hung
after I selected it. didn't go any more.

Ok, frustration, put in Win98 boot disk and reformatted the C: drive,
did scandisk /surface on BOTH C: and E: came up perfect. install
WinXP, and it hung at the F8, I accept the agreement... screen.!!

Ok boot up, reformat C: run scandiskc -perfect and this time got past
install WinXP, accept agreemtn where to install, leave memory intact,
and THEN it hung. Ok go back and install Win98, works great. using
the same CD Drive.

I can't believe the WinXP CD has gone bad. just keps hanging at or
near the start.

Is there any possiblity that the RAM is intermittent, or bad in some
critical location?