Partitions disappeared

F

Folkert Rienstra

Svend Olaf Mikkelsen said:
I may make mistakes,

You? Never.
but I do not think I do in this case.

Of course you do.
I cannot use more time on it.

Because it flies you in the face that Findpart is wrong and you will die
before you admit to that, just like you didn't want to admit that using
Int13-AH=48h shouldn't be used for getting CHS even after I showed
you the rules for Int13-AH=48h, that say that the results are invalid
for drives over size 8GB, in
Subject: Total loss of Hard Drive FATs? (Findpart output included)
No, values shown as larger than 1023 254 63 are larger than that.

That is an obvious oxymoron. But, completely within your style.

Just earlier you said:
"Ptedit shows the content of the 10 bits for the cylinder in the partition
table entry"

And that is because there are only 10 bits in the partition table reserved
for it, so obviously your "values shown as larger than 1023 254 63 "are a
figment of your program's imagination.
Looking at the output in the original message: There are no Findpart errors.

Exactly, and didn't I say that is precisely what was wrong?
It is the values themselfs that are in error as clearly shown by PTEDIT.
Findpart, version 4.42.
Copyright Svend Olaf Mikkelsen, 1999-2004.

OS: DOS 7.10

Disk: 1 Cylinders: 24792 Heads: 255 Sectors: 63 MB: 194474

--PCyl N ID -----Rel -----Num ---MB --Start CHS- ---End CHS-- BS CHS
0 - 0C 63 19534977 9538 0 1 1 1215 254 63 B OK
8511 1 0B 63261554202127712 8511 1 1 24791 254 63 OK OK

------FAT CHS -Size Cl --Root -Good -Rep. Maybe --Bad YY-MM-DD DataMB
0 1 33 9530 8 2 9530 0 0 0 05-03-07 454
8511 1 33 31921 32 2 31921 0 0 0 05-02-21 75808
13317 0 33 Second FAT not found.

Partitions according to partition tables on first harddisk:

--PCyl N ID -----Rel -----Num ---MB --Start CHS- ---End CHS-- BS CHS
0 1*0C 63 19534977 9538 0 1 1 1215 254 63 OK OK
0 2 0F 19535040378748440184935 1216 0 1 24791 254 63 OK

And when will you finally correct those overlapping columns?
 
F

Folkert Rienstra

Oh look, the little prat that couldn't distinguish the primary partition from the
last logical and thought that setting the LBA Start was optional, is back after he
disappeared when someone actually could use his help and left it to Zvi and me.
Now that that blew over he dares to come back and be the little prat again.

Joep said:
"Hmmm" ... Always a good idea to say that if you don't have a clue and you
want to hide that fact...

Better to disappear for a few days so that others can do the jobs you
don't understand, isn't it Joepie. So you don't have to look foolish.
Oh he *should*?

He'd better.
Or he could setup his own web based support forum like that little brat from
DIYDATARECOVERY has done, so that those that may discover some faults
in their warez won't be able to find out and tell.
Maybe you *should* s-t-f-u?
Svend, your comments please why Findpart shows different values from
the actual ones and not finding a problem with that.



[snip]

I do not see any problem.

Svend, the problem obviously,

Perhaps not *that* obvious since he doesn't see it,

Oh, he see's it alright.
Just can't be *seen* to 'see' it because of his 'percepted' reputation.
It is not without reason that he answered to this post and not the other
as that one was far more embarassing.
or me f-w-i-w...

Well, you are totally expected to not see it. That's no surprise.
The same problem is likely to be existent in your own software since
you all seem to be following each other, copying each others faults.
Seeing it would likely be admitting to having serious errors in your
own software. Can't have that.

"It's not so much that Ptedit won't accept this (more than 1023)
but it is because for cylinder values only 10 bits are available"
You're on record, you stupid little troll.

Showing values that obviously can't fit in the bits assigned to them
obviously is a fault.
Says who? You, F'Nut, the great master of masters of partition tables?

Who was it again that repaired Annika's partition table? You, Svend, Zvi?
Right. Glad we settled that.
And since CHS values are ignored,

They are not, oh mighty clueless. Svend is pulling wool for your eyes.
there actually isn't anything there to be woried about.

Even you are not stupid enough that you can't find the posts where Svend
attributes the modulo 32GB bug to CHS values less than 255 heads.
Even you are not stupid enough that you can't find the docs from
Hale Landis's website where the MBR boot code is explained.
However, although your arguments stink, I agree that it would
be nice to see what's actually in the partition table for the simple
reason that Finpart states "Partitions according to partition tables".

Oh goodie, so if he changes the wording he can leave the values be.
Talking about stinking arguments.
WTF F'Nut, when he says he doesn't, he doesn't.

Then he better get a good post canceling application and sue Google
to remove his posts before someone proofs him to know better.
OMFG ...


What has CHS got to do with 32 Gb bug?

What, the recovery expert from DIYDATARECOVERY has to ask?
Gee, what a disappointment.
I think it does as long as LBA start is 63.

Rotflol. Thanks for showing how stupid you really are.
I think I tried that once.

You 'think', huh? Try again.

You don't have a single clue to what code is in the MBR, haven't you, Joepie.
I know *for fact* that if you clear the CHS values the system does not
boot with a Win98 MBR(boot)sector as it only uses the CHS Int13/AH=02.
The W2k MBR code is a little smarter but only uses LBA Int13/AH=42 *if*
the partition bootsector is out of reach for CHS Int13/AH=02 as reported
by Drive Parameters Int 13/AH=08h.
So for the bios at Auto and the boot partiton whithin the first
8GB it too will use CHS Int13 with the MBR supplied CHS values.
That's what he said.


One that supports the size of the disk?


That remains to be seen

Exactly. You don't know it until something happens to prove otherwise.
Apparently Svend's GB32 program can tell so that could have been one
answer to that question but for some reason he chose to keep quiet about it.
Maybe it has flaws too. As a matter of fact, I pointed them out to him once.

Maybe "he couldnot use more time on that" too.
Oh F'Nut, you're so smart! You should have been a lawyer, the way you set up
people and catch their little lies!

Thanks for pointing out that he lied.
Or maybe Svend is talking about something other than CHS values which is relevant?

Nope, and even someone as stupid as you can find those posts about the modulo
32 GB bug with the help of Google: "This is the 2nd time My HD's Been Corrupt"
 
J

Joep

Smallus Dickus said:
Oh look, the little prat that couldn't distinguish the primary partition from the
last logical and thought that setting the LBA Start was optional, is back after he
disappeared when someone actually could use his help and left it to Zvi
and me.

You're really clueless aren't you. As if Zvi needs your opinions, you
nitwit. Anyway, I invited OP to post a DiskPatch logfile in our forum.
Now that that blew over he dares to come back and be the little prat
again.

Hahaha! OMG, you're really in this little world of your own, aren't you?
Better to disappear for a few days so that others can do the jobs you
don't understand, isn't it Joepie.

It's a good advise for yourself, the quality of this group would increase if
you did shut up about the things you don't understand.
So you don't have to look foolish.

Said the fool ...
He'd better.

Are you on drugs or anything? Or just one of the many manic episodes?
Or he could setup his own web based support forum like that little brat from
DIYDATARECOVERY has done, so that those that may discover some faults
in their warez won't be able to find out and tell.

You're pathetic. Sad. You're really too narrow minded and this is the reason
you figure, why I maintain a web based support forum? Well, think harder,
maybe it's because I'd rather not have to deal with the noise you produce
all the time. You hardly ever give any to the point advise. All you can do
is critisize the comments, suggestions and software made by others. Somehow
the idea that you're nothing than just an annoying little dwarf does seem to
difficult to grasp for you.
Maybe you *should* s-t-f-u?
Svend, your comments please why Findpart shows different values from
the actual ones and not finding a problem with that.



[snip]

I do not see any problem.

Svend, the problem obviously,

Perhaps not *that* obvious since he doesn't see it,

Oh, he see's it alright.

Ah, again F'Nut knows better what people know, see, want, do etc. than those
people themselves. You're clearly suffering from pathological mental
condition.
Just can't be *seen* to 'see' it because of his 'percepted' reputation.
It is not without reason that he answered to this post and not the other
as that one was far more embarassing.


Well, you are totally expected to not see it. That's no surprise.
The same problem is likely to be existent in your own software since
you all seem to be following each other, copying each others faults.
Seeing it would likely be admitting to having serious errors in your
own software. Can't have that.
Lol!


"It's not so much that Ptedit won't accept this (more than 1023)
but it is because for cylinder values only 10 bits are available"

Yes, I told you that before. What about it?
You're on record, you stupid little troll.

LOL! You take yourself too serious. What are you trying to prove, that you
can search the Google archive? Well, we got that, good boy!
Showing values that obviously can't fit in the bits assigned to them
obviously is a fault.

That depends.
Who was it again that repaired Annika's partition table? You, Svend, Zvi?

Hahahaaa! Fool, is that the one you were about to screw up? Anyway, the
score is F'Nut 1 - Joepie 10.000 >
Right. Glad we settled that.

Whaahhh, OMG how pathetic! He fixed a partition table, hardly!
They are not, oh mighty clueless. Svend is pulling wool for your eyes.

Yes, the whole world is crazy, but fortunately we have Don F'Nut to save the
world.
Even you are not stupid enough that you can't find the posts where Svend
attributes the modulo 32GB bug to CHS values less than 255 heads.
Even you are not stupid enough that you can't find the docs from
Hale Landis's website where the MBR boot code is explained.

Ah, the flawed Ron Reaugh immitation, I was waiting for that. Yes, who
misses him when we have F'Nut ....
Oh goodie, so if he changes the wording he can leave the values be.

Yes, that's right. if you change that to interpreted CHS values or
something, then all's well. If you know better, I suggest you write your own
software. Then we can have some fun with that.
Talking about stinking arguments.


Then he better get a good post canceling application and sue Google
to remove his posts before someone proofs him to know better.

Everyone is in title to change opinions. Anyway, I think because you just
don't understand everything, you read things that aren't there. Speaking of
which, I also supsect you see and hear things that aren't really there.
What, the recovery expert from DIYDATARECOVERY has to ask?

I have stated before, and I will do again (no problems with that) that I do
not know everything. Your attempts to exploit gaps in my knowledge are
childish.
Gee, what a disappointment.

I am happy to disappoint you. In case you didn't notice, I couldn't care
less if I disappoint you or not. Your opinions have zero value to me, it's
just so entertaining.
Rotflol. Thanks for showing how stupid you really are.


You 'think', huh? Try again.

I did. It doesn't fly! How about that, I didn't expect that. I really was
convinced I tried that once. Anyway, you see F'Nut, how easy it is to simply
admit you made a mistake. Of course I'd rahter hoped it would just boot, but
what the heck, it didn't.
You don't have a single clue to what code is in the MBR, haven't you,
Joepie.

Well, I haven't wasted much time on it.
I know *for fact* that if you clear the CHS values the system does not
boot with a Win98 MBR(boot)sector as it only uses the CHS Int13/AH=02.

Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day ...
The W2k MBR code is a little smarter but only uses LBA Int13/AH=42 *if*
the partition bootsector is out of reach for CHS Int13/AH=02 as reported
by Drive Parameters Int 13/AH=08h.
So for the bios at Auto and the boot partiton whithin the first
8GB it too will use CHS Int13 with the MBR supplied CHS values.


Exactly. You don't know it until something happens to prove otherwise.

Yes, but still "she wasn't on one".
Apparently Svend's GB32 program can tell so that could have been one
answer to that question but for some reason he chose to keep quiet about it.
Maybe it has flaws too. As a matter of fact, I pointed them out to him
once.

Oh? Did you really? Ow man, you're sooo kewl! Now, catching someone that
actually produces something himself is quite easy. Now you make something
without errors F'Nut and then we'll talk again. Until you do you're nothing
but an annoying little prat yourself.
Maybe "he couldnot use more time on that" too.

Maybe, but that's not up to you.
Thanks for pointing out that he lied.

Well, that's another lawyer trick. I didn't point that out at all, the point
was that you think you did.
relevant?

Nope, and even someone as stupid as you can find those posts about the modulo
32 GB bug with the help of Google: "This is the 2nd time My HD's Been Corrupt"

It was just a question, didn't know you were gonna be so upset. Anyway Ron,
indeed, if someone as deranged as you can point me to that post then I
should be able to do that, yes.
 
J

Joep

Folkert Rienstra said:
You? Never.


Of course you do.


Because it flies you in the face that Findpart is wrong and you will die
before you admit to that, just like you didn't want to admit that using
Int13-AH=48h shouldn't be used for getting CHS even after I showed
you the rules for Int13-AH=48h, that say that the results are invalid
for drives over size 8GB, in
Subject: Total loss of Hard Drive FATs? (Findpart output included)

Oh, right, that must be it. Loser!
That is an obvious oxymoron. But, completely within your style.

Just earlier you said:
"Ptedit shows the content of the 10 bits for the cylinder in the partition
table entry"

And that is because there are only 10 bits in the partition table reserved
for it,

And you think you need to explain that?
so obviously your "values shown as larger than 1023 254 63 "are a
figment of your program's imagination.

Maybe you're right. Imagination is something you know about.
errors.

Exactly, and didn't I say that is precisely what was wrong?
It is the values themselfs that are in error as clearly shown by PTEDIT.


And when will you finally correct those overlapping columns?

Hahaha ... F'Nut, you really need professional care! Who the F*** you think
you are?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top