If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:35:44 UTC, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
wrote: I'd settle for an equivalent of Norton DiskEdit, i.e. show me the structures, document them, let me scribble. Still looking... In that case you might want to check out my DFSee tool: http://www.dfsee.com/dfsee.htm That will display many filestructures (including most NTFS stuff) is a readable (decoded) format, or when needed as HEX dumps. Apart from displaying, it has lots of specific 'fix' commands to repair 'common' problems like damaged bootsectors or partition-table problems. It also has file copy/recover commands for undeleting and saving data from damaged filesystems. The program is NOT free, but it is not that expensive either. You can download the evaluation version and play with that for a month or so to see what it can do. There is a Windows (console, NT/W2K/XP only), plus a DOS and an OS2 version in the same package, and a native Linux one will be added to the package shortly ... Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; Author of DFSee: http://www.dfsee.com |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
Jan van Wijk wrote:
snip The program is NOT free, but it is not that expensive either. You can download the evaluation version and play with that for a month or so to see what it can do. Top man - you could never know what it means to be able to test software properly. Programs that supposedly let you "see" what they could deliver with the full version suck. Odie -- RetroData Data Recovery Experts www.retrodata.co.uk |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
Hi,
The current state of NTFS recovery software (I.E. supplied with the O.S.) appears to me to violate "The Goal of Trustworthy Computing", Reliability: The customer can depend on the product to fulfill its functions. There appears to be a dichotomy in the handling of file system errors. CHKDSK will run or CHKDSK will not run is the dividing point. If CHKDSK will run, it does its work and repairs the file system with minimal reporting. The decision apparently has been made to have it do its work now behind a blank screen during the boot process. Thus it has passed into to the realm of programs that to weekend computer warriors will always succeed as it is started and runs without input from the user. As the years have gone by, less and less information on what it has done is being reported. This has been mirrored by Norton, appearing to long term Norton users that they are getting less and less for their money. If CHKDSK will not run, then there is no path to recover. That is the violation. Persons who are trying to protect their rice bowl think this is just fine and apparently are stifling any improvement in documentation, reporting of what is wrong and actually doing the repair. To those who say that the only method of repair if CHKDSK will not run is to hire a person who has many years of experience and makes a living doing data recovery just adds to the dichotomy. CHKDSK is trusted (and Norton) to repair the file system all by its self for the second case. That it cannot be trusted for the first case is a false position. The rules for discovering what is wrong and what to do to repair the file system can be included in the CHKDSK program and need not as data recovery persons say, be kept only in the human brain. The rules for finding what is wrong when CHKDSK will run were transferred from the human brain, why not the rules for when it will not run. Repair in place I have stated is the only viable solution for gargantuan sized external hard drives that cannot be backed up currently. Until sugar cubes holding more data bits than grains of sand in the universe are perfected, this will be the case. It may be useful to keep copies of various data structures to aid in the recovery by CHKDSK., that is what I wish to do now but my list is incomplete I suspect. The argument that confusing and intimidating information must not be shown to the users is an strong argument towards eliminating the dichotomy and doing the job without the user being involved. Furthermore, keeping information from all persons because some may not understand is elitist and should not be condoned. The recording of what CHKDSK has done behind the blank screen when booting is being done is perhaps a model of presenting the information to persons who can understand it and not showing it to others. ----------------------------------------- What will follow now I suspect will be a massive attempt by persons wishing to stop their rice bowls from being broken. I am not saying that they do not provide a useful, needed and valuable service. Stephen H. Fischer Joep wrote: "Stephen H. Fischer" wrote in message news:sqzYc.2547 The loss of everything is perhaps more likely to happen with hard drives connected with FireWire or USB. Loss of everything is often caused by partition table or boot sector corruption. This can happen on any disk, not only FireWire or USB. Partition table and boot sector damage can often be fixed in place in a relatively safe manner. I recommend not to attempt to fix data loss caused by anything beyond partition table / boot sector damage. By doing so you often enter the path of no return. Although software exists that claims to be able to undo for example reformats of NTFS drives, I have found this software to be very unreliable and dangerous. 'Repairs' could not be undone. What was so disappointing with most (or all) of the NTFS recovery software I looked at was they all were just trying to recover your data. And there's good reason for that. None provided any help to really understand what had gone wrong thus making the repeating of the failure likely to occur. Data recovery software is written with the intent to recover data, not to lecture you on file system structures. The strength of data recovery software is often the ability to ignore errors and rebuild a virtual file system structure regardless present errors. This virtual file system is often simplified - it holds just enough info to copy lost data, it's not enough to actually repair a file system in place. Although I have seen chkdsk bring back lost data (on a clone), in a data loss scenario chkdsk should be avoided as long as no sector by sector clone is avalable. With the number of years NTFS has been around, I was disheartened by the low quality of documentation and the absence of recovery programs that look at the MBR, the Partition table, the NTFS Boot sectors and the MFT and report on possible problems. Just presenting all the information arranged on one screen would be a step up. For 9 out of 10 users (but probably more) this info would only be confusing and intimidating. BTW, there are plenty of tools that look at the partition tables and boot sectors and repair those if possible. So much of the non $$$$$$ recovery programs and those supplied with XP and the various Resource kits just convert the naked bits to hex and build a display or printout list that only a person who has been working for years could look at and understand what is wrong. And yet you are still suprised that people who have spent all that time looking at all the naked Hex don't give away their software for free? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
"Stephen H. Fischer" wrote in message
news Hi, The current state of NTFS recovery software (I.E. supplied with the O.S.) appears to me to violate "The Goal of Trustworthy Computing", I think this is a far fetched point. I don't understand how my car works in great detail, still I trust it. Also it appears to me, the main focus of "Trustworthy Computing" is privacy: I don't want my information to become available to others without my approval. And beside that, I don't appreciate it that much, IMO it's mainly marketing. Reliability: The customer can depend on the product to fulfill its functions. Wake up call: There is no softeware in the world that will under all circumstances deliver what it is intended for. This can be due to software bugs or external factors. Chkdsk's main purpose is file system consistency and integrity, not data recovery per se. File system structures can simply be beyond repair. There appears to be a dichotomy in the handling of file system errors. CHKDSK will run or CHKDSK will not run is the dividing point. If CHKDSK will run, it does its work and repairs the file system with minimal reporting. You're making a mistake. The fact that chkdsk runs does not mean by defintion it delivers and actually will repair the file system. In a data loss scenario chkdsk may be the last thing you want ... The decision apparently has been made to have it do its work now behind a blank screen during the boot process. If you want you can see chkdsk run and you can also learn what it actually does. Just search the MS KB. Thus it has passed into to the realm of programs that to weekend computer warriors will always succeed as it is started and runs without input from the user. To weekend computer warriors (who ever they are) software will always succeed. Unfortunely this is not the case. As the years have gone by, less and less information on what it has done is being reported. This has been mirrored by Norton, Many weekend PC warriors actually prefer this. Many people are actually able to use a PC because it's complexity is hidden from them. Many people say, spare me the techno babble, I don't care how you do it, just do it. And they want it to be as easy as possible. And this is normal, we all probably use many machines, devices and techniques all day we do not have a very deep understanding of, of how they work. appearing to long term Norton users that they are getting less and less for their money. The problem with Norton is that they make you pay for non substantial upgrades, but that is a different matter. Besides that, millions don't seem to care as they happily upgrade every year. If CHKDSK will not run, then there is no path to recover. Yes there is ... That is the violation. Untrue. In every simple PC magazine, in every manual it is repeated over and over again to make backups. So no one can claim he wasn't warned that something may go wrong. Persons who are trying to protect their rice bowl think this is just fine and apparently are stifling any improvement in documentation, reporting of what is wrong and actually doing the repair. Bull. I have a Saab, if there's something wrong, the car's computer will tell me there's "engine trouble" and advises me to take it to the garage. I am fine with that, I don't want it to talk about parts being broken I don't know what they do anyway. If I take in my car for repairs, I want it repaired, I don't want to be lectured in car maintenance. So the mechanic hooks up the car to a computer which will give much more info. I pay the guy for the service to interpret the info and do something about it. I can not be knowledgable on every possible subject. If I do want to know about car maintenance, I buy a book or do a course on the subject. If I study the subject enough I can fix other peoples cars and get payed for that or maybe even create tools allowing other to fix their own car. So if you insist of fixing your NTFS trouble yourself; happy reading! To those who say that the only method of repair if CHKDSK will not run is to hire a person who has many years of experience and makes a living doing data recovery just adds to the dichotomy. You can be stuborn, but that won't change the truth. Some scenarios require extensive knowledge. See car example. CHKDSK is trusted (and Norton) to repair the file system all by its self for the second case. I don't trust them to that. In data loss scenarios I'd even be against running any of those 2. That it cannot be trusted for the first case is a false position. The rules for discovering what is wrong and what to do to repair the file system can be included in the CHKDSK program and need not as data recovery persons say, be kept only in the human brain. There are books on NTFS and there is extensive open source and free NTFS documentation available (http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/ntfs/). Still, many rather pay someone who studied that documentation and provides software based on the knowledge. The rules for finding what is wrong when CHKDSK will run were transferred from the human brain, why not the rules for when it will not run. It did tell why it didn't run: "Unable to determine Volume Version and State". Repair in place I have stated is the only viable solution for gargantuan sized external hard drives that cannot be backed up currently. Any disk can be backed up, just buy a same size disk. It may be useful to keep copies of various data structures to aid in the recovery by CHKDSK., that is what I wish to do now but my list is incomplete I suspect. Tools you referred to (Norton) do keep copies of some structures, though they may simply not be enough. NTFS itself keeps copies of some structures. Don't you understand? Anything man made can be broken. And some things simply can not be fixed or forseen. To increase your chances keep copies of all structures and data, it's called a backup. The argument that confusing and intimidating information must not be shown to the users is an strong argument towards eliminating the dichotomy and doing the job without the user being involved. Nonsense. For years end users have asked to hide the techno babble - Linux will grow as soon as they start to understand that. Those interested in the techno side of stuff can do so. Try Linux. BTW, XP comes with loads of command line tools that allow you to configure chkdsk and every thing else you can't do from behind a nice GUI. In Linux, everything is open source. It is however a misconception that all people will know be able to understand how everything works. There's simply too much info, plus many people don't even care. Furthermore, keeping information from all persons because some may not understand is elitist and should not be condoned. Nothing to do with elite. It sounds good though, but it is a statement and not a valid argument. ----------------------------------------- What will follow now I suspect will be a massive attempt by persons wishing to stop their rice bowls from being broken. Well, I do not feel like attempting to do *that* at all. I am not afraid of that all. It's really easy to make statements like your last statement; to anyone responding you can now say: "you see, told you so! He's trying to protect his rice bowl, no matter what he says". -- Joep |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
Hi Odie,
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:12:38 UTC, Odie Ferrous wrote: The program is NOT free, but it is not that expensive either. You can download the evaluation version and play with that for a month or so to see what it can do. Top man - you could never know what it means to be able to test software properly. Oh, I surely do. I have been doing that professionally for over a decade :-) Programs that supposedly let you "see" what they could deliver with the full version suck. I agree, so the DFSee evaluation version delivers everything the full version will. The evaluation version for my software is EXACTLY the same as the 'full" version. The only difference is the right to use it for anything else than evaluation ... There is a timeout on un-registred versions (60 days from release), but if you need further evaluation, simply download the latest ... There is a new (minor) release almost once a month ... The registration you pay for DFSee is NOT really for the software itself, it is simply for the right to use it legally and even more important to receive support and help on using it ... Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; Author of DFSee: http://www.dfsee.com |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
In article ,
J. S. Pack wrote: On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:33:09 GMT, "Stephen H. Fischer" wrote: Hi, The current state of NTFS recovery software (I.E. supplied with the O.S.) appears to me to violate "The Goal of Trustworthy Computing", Reliability: The customer can depend on the product to fulfill its functions. Under normal circumstances. Which it does quite well, better than FAT32 ever did, so there's no violation. There appears to be a dichotomy in the handling of file system errors. As well there should be. CHKDSK will run or CHKDSK will not run is the dividing point. If CHKDSK will run, it does its work and repairs the file system with minimal reporting. The decision apparently has been made to have it do its work now behind a blank screen during the boot process. Thus it has passed into to the realm of programs that to weekend computer warriors will always succeed as it is started and runs without input from the user. If what's on your disk is valuable to you, you'll back it it and keep a copy at another location, and never overwrite your most-recent backup media. There are any number of ways you can lose the contents of your disk dive that dtaa recovery can't fix. Theft and lightning are obvious ones. And, if you're protected against fire, flood, theft, etc, you are, by definition, protected against a file system failure (whatever that means.) It's not clear to me that the OP has an NTFS problem, because two file systems became unavailable at the same time. To me that sounds like losing partition information or a hardware failure. I'd like to know, when the dust settles if the disk formats correctly and works OK. It's also not clear what the OP was doing when the problem happened. NTFS is better than any non-journalling FS I've ever worked with, from a reliability standpoint. Performance is a different question and not revevant unless you have a million files, or so, IMO NTFS is more reliable that the disks it runs on. IMO NTFS is amazingly tolerant of failing hardware that the disk is connected to. -- Al Dykes ----------- adykes at p a n i x . c o m |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
"Jan van Wijk" wrote in message news:W1d6fUB5m4qH-pn2-sMpV7SdY3igU@merlin Hi Odie, On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:12:38 UTC, Odie Ferrous wrote: The program is NOT free, but it is not that expensive either. You can download the evaluation version and play with that for a month or so to see what it can do. Top man - you could never know what it means to be able to test software properly. Oh, I surely do. I have been doing that professionally for over a decade :-) Wow, you tested evaluation versions 'professionally' (whatever that means) for over a decade. You must be quite an expert. Yet simply setting up your newsreader properly you can't manage. Programs that supposedly let you "see" what they could deliver with the full version suck. I agree, so the DFSee evaluation version delivers everything the full version will. The evaluation version for my software is EXACTLY the same as the 'full" version. The only difference is the right to use it for anything else than evaluation ... So if by accident you actually manage to salvage anything you have to reverse the situation again (which it probably won't do for you, now what?) and make a registration so you can 'legally' use it ....... There is a timeout on un-registred versions (60 days from release), but if you need further evaluation, simply download the latest ... Or if you're not downright stupid you just set your clock back and save you the 1.5 MB download that may not even be different. There is a new (minor) release almost once a month ... The registration you pay for DFSee is NOT really for the software itself, it is simply for the right to use it legally and even more important to receive support and help on using it ... Regards, JvW |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:05:05 UTC, "Folkert Rienstra"
wrote: Wow, you tested evaluation versions 'professionally' (whatever that means) Picky picky ... Testing system software has been part of my job for many years ... Yet simply setting up your newsreader properly you can't manage. I notice you mention that a lot to anyone who's posts you don't seem to like for some reason, yet you never tell anyone WHAT is wrong. I am not to old to learn ... I don't understand your behaviour at times, i KNOW you are a knowledgable person from many valuable posts I have seen from you, yet you seem to enjoy ****ing everybody off most of the time. snip There is a timeout on un-registred versions (60 days from release), but if you need further evaluation, simply download the latest ... Or if you're not downright stupid you just set your clock back and save you the 1.5 MB download that may not even be different. Of course, if you feel happy with it, that will work too :-) Regards, JvW (not offended, just amused) -- Jan van Wijk; Author of DFSee: http://www.dfsee.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:38:35 +0200, "Joep"
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" wrote in message I did find a number of tools, mainly Windows-based (meaning you'd have to have a recovery PC) Not perse ... some run from BartPE (http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/), for example iRecover (http://www.diydatarecovery.nl/~tkuurstra/irecoverpe.htm). Ah, Bart'sPE - I must have another look at that, once it's SP2-ready (current change log mentions changes to accomodate an SP2 RC, but dunno if that makes it OK for RTM SP2). I've tried Bart's PE before, and liked it, except without a full av that I could run from it (and a way to update that av from USB camera or flash drive) it wasn't that useful to me at the time. For every data recovery, I usually need to do 10-20 formal av scans, and for a while it looked as if Bit Defender Live would be better there. But so far that's been too unstable to complete a full scan. If you can still download recovery software, then it may be assumed you have access to an additional PC anyway. Yes, but I'd still rather not run NT if I can avoid it - too much risk of it fiddling with the at-risk HD I dropped in (SR, AutoChk, etc.) One in-place repair tool, diskette-based, that didn't boot when I tested it. Maybe the DOS or Linux version on the diskette didn't boot - that doesn't tell you much about the tool itself. The tool itself probably doesn't boot, it needs to be started once the OS (DOS/Linux) runs. Like MemTest86+ and several HD vendor's diags, it was an .EXE download that writes a self-booting diskette when "installed". This diskette may well be Linux-based, as MemTest86+ is, or it may use a FreeDOS as some similar utilities do. Whatever the details, it didn't boot. --------------- ------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Sucess-proof your business! Tip #37 When given an NDA to sign, post it on your web site --------------- ------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
On 31 Aug 2004 06:48:54 GMT, "Jan van Wijk"
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:35:44 UTC, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" I'd settle for an equivalent of Norton DiskEdit, i.e. show me the structures, document them, let me scribble. In that case you might want to check out my DFSee tool: http://www.dfsee.com/dfsee.htm That will display many filestructures (including most NTFS stuff) has lots of specific 'fix' commands to repair 'common' problems It also has file copy/recover commands for undeleting and saving data from damaged filesystems. The program is NOT free, but it is not that expensive either. You can download the evaluation version and play with that for a month or so to see what it can do. Thanks; I've downloaded it, but will wait until I have time before I try it (else the demo period may time out before I get a round tuit) -------------- ---- --- -- - - - - "I think it's time we took our friendship to the next level" 'What, gender roles and abuse?' -------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" wrote in message
On 31 Aug 2004 06:48:54 GMT, "Jan van Wijk" On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:35:44 UTC, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" I'd settle for an equivalent of Norton DiskEdit, i.e. show me the structures, document them, let me scribble. In that case you might want to check out my DFSee tool: http://www.dfsee.com/dfsee.htm That will display many filestructures (including most NTFS stuff) has lots of specific 'fix' commands to repair 'common' problems It also has file copy/recover commands for undeleting and saving data from damaged filesystems. The program is NOT free, but it is not that expensive either. You can download the evaluation version and play with that for a month or so to see what it can do. Thanks; I've downloaded it, but will wait until I have time before I try it (else the demo period may time out before I get a round tuit) "There is a timeout on un-registred versions (60 days from release)," Maybe you should read first before you snip? -------------- ---- --- -- - - - - "I think it's time we took our friendship to the next level" 'What, gender roles and abuse?' -------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:33:09 GMT, "Stephen H. Fischer"
The current state of NTFS recovery software (I.E. supplied with the O.S.) appears to me to violate "The Goal of Trustworthy Computing", Reliability: The customer can depend on the product to fulfill its functions. Breaks the safe hex principle that the system should not initiate potentially destructive system changes. If CHKDSK will run, it does its work and repairs the file system with minimal reporting. The decision apparently has been made to have it do its work now behind a blank screen during the boot process. This is the bad news. If CHKDSK will not run, then there is no path to recover. That is the violation. No, that's not the violation. ChkDsk is inadequate and IMO is unfit for use, period. Users in the 21st century deserve better than a tool dating from DOS 5 or older. If it is not allowed to "fix" automatically, it is known to return spurious errors when checking a volume that is in use. Most PCs are setup as one big C: that is always in use. Join the dots. If you allow the thing to "fix" automatically, it will discard conflicting data when it "fixes", thus breaking the ability to use that data to really "fix" if ChkDsk guesses wrong. After ChkDsk "fixes", the "fixed" data is likely to be broken, the info needed to really fix is thrown away, and it can no longer be detected as a damaged file because the "fix" has rubbed off the sharp edges. What you want is the ability to *interactively* check the file system, as Scandisk does for FATxx. You want ChkDsk to stop and say "I found such-and-such an error and (more info) I plan to "fix" this by doing X, Y, Z. Continue, or abort?" but it's too brain-dead for that. AutoChk (that runs after bad exits) is even worse; it can only run in "fix" mode. The point about "fix" mode is that this does NOT have an interest in preserving user data; it is only concerned with keeping the file system sane. If you read the fine print in MS's NTFS documentation, they are quite clear on this, e.g. transaction rollback may preserve sane metatdata but it does NOT preserve user data. When it comes to management of physical disk errors, it gets worse. As it is, the HD's firmware attempts to paper over failing sectors on the fly, by copying material from a failing sector to a spare and then doing an address switcheroo. Now the OS (on NTFS volumes) tries to do exactly the same thing. Too many cooks? You bet! Hide information you urgently need to be aware of? You bet! So I choose to avoid NTFS altogether, and use DOS mode Scandisk for elective and controlled file system repair. To those who say that the only method of repair if CHKDSK will not run is to hire a person who has many years of experience and makes a living doing data recovery just adds to the dichotomy. CHKDSK is trusted (and Norton) to repair the file system all by its self for the second case. ChkDsk is NOT a data recovery tool, and has no right to presume to be one. Automating data-destructive "fixes" may help MS cut down on support calls, but it is detremental to data safety as it robs the user of the option to manually repair. And yes, a compitent tech (or an end-user recovery tool) can do better than autofixing logic to manually repair, even if only because it can pull data based on both items of conflicting data. Repair in place I have stated is the only viable solution for gargantuan sized external hard drives that cannot be backed up currently. Backup, by definition, loses data. So a need for data recovery is not going to go away, no matter how much you backup. The perfect backup contains all content except unwanted changes. Ponder on how you separate unwanted changes (loss) from all data you saved right up to the present moment, and see the problem. The argument that confusing and intimidating information must not be shown to the users is an strong argument towards eliminating the dichotomy and doing the job without the user being involved. That's lazyware, i.e. "let's cut support costs, and if that breaks user's stuff, who cares; we aren't liable for that". Furthermore, keeping information from all persons because some may not understand is elitist and should not be condoned. Absolutely! The recording of what CHKDSK has done behind the blank screen when booting is being done is perhaps a model of presenting the information to persons who can understand it and not showing it to others. Well, burying it the depths of Event Viewer under "Logon" on something seemingly unrelated is pretty opaque and user-hostile. -------------- ---- --- -- - - - - "I think it's time we took our friendship to the next level" 'What, gender roles and abuse?' -------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:29:12 +0700, J. S. Pack wrote:
URL http://65.108.230.150/downloads/mybo...uilder3032.zip I've tried Bart's PE before, and liked it, except without a full av that I could run from it (and a way to update that av from USB camera or flash drive) it wasn't that useful to me at the time. This has *exactly* what you need: http://www.windowsubcd.com/index.htm I get a 404 on that link... -------------- ---- --- -- - - - - "I think it's time we took our friendship to the next level" 'What, gender roles and abuse?' -------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
Time to read the Win 2K/XP resource kits, if you want to be a MVP.
Chkdsk is not based on DOS. Everything in NT is written in C, not ASM, for one thing. "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" wrote in message ... ChkDsk is inadequate and IMO is unfit for use, period. Users in the 21st century deserve better than a tool dating from DOS 5 or older. If it is not allowed to "fix" automatically, it is known to return spurious errors when checking a volume that is in use. Most PCs are setup as one big C: that is always in use. Join the dots. Of course there is a tool to override autochk defaults. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of NTFS/MFT recovery software?
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 21:17:46 UTC, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
wrote: The program is NOT free, but it is not that expensive either. You can download the evaluation version and play with that for a month or so to see what it can do. Thanks; I've downloaded it, but will wait until I have time before I try it (else the demo period may time out before I get a round tuit) That will not really help :-) The period is 62 days starting from release-date of that particular version. Best to download just before you want to test it ... Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; Author of DFSee: http://www.dfsee.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
unable to remove scanner software | create_share | Hardware and Windows XP | 3 | July 29th 04 10:41 PM |
Windows XP Recovery | Sanjay Sabnis | Security and Administration with Windows XP | 0 | July 24th 04 05:06 PM |
Windows XP Recovery | Sanjay Sabnis | Security and Administration with Windows XP | 0 | July 24th 04 04:52 PM |
Windows XP Recovery | Sanjay Sabnis | Security and Administration with Windows XP | 0 | July 24th 04 04:52 PM |
Advise needed on NTFS disk recovery software. | §kullywag©- | Customizing Windows XP | 1 | July 17th 04 09:49 PM |