Need Data Recovery from HD

AND, your results will vary, depending upon how much you've used the drive since you lost
the data. You might only be able to recover portions of files, and not the whole file
itself, or not be able to recover certain files at all. The rule of thumb is to use the
system as little as possible, until you recover what you need. Otherwise, the drive
sectors that contain the files might be overwritten. I once deleted about 200 JPG files.
By the time I recovered them with EasyRecovery, I was only able to fully recover about 80
of the files. The other 120 files were either only partially recoverable, with 1/3 to 1/2
of the image viewable, or not recoverable at all. So, timely recovery is VERY important.
--

T.C.

Remove [NoSpam] to reply


"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
om...
- Nehmo -
EasyRecovery Professional Edition from Ontrack http://www.ontrack.com/
did indeed extract files from my victim HD.

I'm learing how to use the app. I may have been misleading with my
previous description of the results it produced. I'm getting different
and better results now, but they're still not easy to use. It's not
like you can open Explorer and see the everything on the victim HD.

I'll report back later on how successful I've been.

*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.730 / Virus Database: 485 - Release Date: 7/28/2004

"jazz" wrote in message
... a bunch of crap ... OP was not
that smart - MS Support was stupid - and Jazz finishes it off.

- Do NOT write to the victim disk at all, no more checkdisks or whatever.
- Get some read-only data recovery software (demo versions intially) and
have it scan the victim disk.
- If it doesn't find the data, simply try another product (again, a demo
intially). All products have their strenghts and weaknesses. Someone may
recommend product X because it helped this person out in *one specific
scenario* and another person may recommend product Y for the same reason.
You need to find the product that helps in *your case* and you can only find
it by simply trying.

--
Joep

You will need decent recovery software. Some of it can be quite expensive.
One of the best tools I've used is Disk Commander from Winternals
http://www.winternals.com/products/r...pid=ap#diskcom
however it is definitely in the higher end price range.



--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
...
- Harry Ohrn -
Are you certain it is jumpered correctly? Some large hard drives have
a
capacity limiter jumper setting so they can be used with older boards.
I do
not know if that is true for your drive but if the jumper is set
incorrectly
that could be one reason why the size is not being properly displayed.

- Nehmo -
After I send this post, I'll physically remove it and put the jumpers
off and then back on to make sure of the contacts. But if Western
Digital's literature is correct, then I have the drive correctly
jumpered as slave - 1&2 connected + 3&4 connected, both jumpers next to
the power connector.

The size of the drive showed up as reduced after I ran CHKDSK /F. While
I was running that, BTW, CHKDSK correctly listed the name of the drive
and it's size. Now I can't even get the name.

Since the drive is now listed as healthy in Computer Management, I
believe if I formatted the drive now, it would be usable at the reduced
size. But that's relatively not important. I want to retrieve the data.


--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

For your information, chkdsk certainly DOES exist in Win98, if you use F8
and boot to the command prompt.

So, in addition to having a foul mouth, you are also quite stupid!

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)


"Bill" wrote in message
...

"Harry Ohrn" wrote in message
...
Your "new" motherboard might not be so new. It could be limited to the
size
of hard drive it will recognize. A 32GB limitation is not unusual for some
older boards. What is the brand and model number of your motherboard?

BTW you mentioned that you ran CHKDSK from "DOS". Is the drive formatted
as
FAT32?

You dumb ¢ünt! How in the world can one get into DOS when there is none in
XP. Even if he had the partition formatted in FAT32, and used a 98/ME
bootdisk to get there (which I am giving you the benefit that you got this
basic element correct), there is no CHKDSK command line in it. How in the
fü¢k you got the MVP status is beyond me!

Data recovery software is free. Try findntfs from www.partitionsupport.com

"Harry Ohrn" wrote in message
...
You will need decent recovery software. Some of it can be quite expensive.
One of the best tools I've used is Disk Commander from Winternals

http://www.winternals.com/products/r...pid=ap#diskcom
however it is definitely in the higher end price range.

That is because the first checkdisk has screwed up the partition table and
it no longer coresponds with the formating map. NTFS works a little
differently from fat filesystems but the concept is the same. Do not
reformat it or anything. Get easy recovery profesional or r-studios recover
software. you will prpbably also need a larger drive to stor the old data
from it. you will be able to find most if not all the data like game info,
downloaded music or other files, word documents and such like that. you just
need to make sure you have enough room to store the stuff after it is
recovered and it won't (shouldn't) allow you to stor it on the drive being
recovered.

The windows XP repair install will only replace system files so you are
pretty safe in asuming that noting important was over writen unless you
attemped to reinstall after the partition table became messed up. Most data
recovery programs will cost around 100 -300 dollars if not more. If this is
the only time you think you might ever use it then you might want to just
send it off to a recovery lab. look for one that won't void a warenty on
the drive and they usually start around 2-3 hundred dollars plus a little
fee for whatever type of medium you have them place it on (like another
drive or cds or dvds).

http://www.data-recovery-software.net/
http://www.ontrack.com/easyrecoveryprofessional/
are a couple of links to some poular recover software options. I have used
both and found the ontrac offering a little easier to use for ther novice
but the rstudios seems to be a little more powerfull with the ability to
recover from other partition format types like ext2 and 3 and reiserFS.

After you are satisfied that you have all the data you need from the drive,
you should repartition it and then reformat it and it will regain the full
80gig back. It might be a good idea to visit the manufacturers website and
download a diagnostic utility to chach the drive for errors too. Do that
only after you have done your data recovery so there is less of a chance of
sending the drive to the graveyard if it does have a problem. Also if it
stopes being reconized by the bios or the disk management snapin, the data
recovery houses can usually still recover so if it stop spinning there is
still hope. It just get a little more expensive. Definatly do not write any
thing or format the drive until after you have don your data recovery.

BTW the checkdisk on the seperate mainboard probably misinterpreted the LBA
wrong because of the way it works and that is the reason it had the error.
If it was on the original mainboard, nothign should have happend. logical
block adressing is needed on most drive over a certain size. it creatres a
CHS (cylinders-heads-sectors) address scheame larger then what the ide chips
can generaly use and does it on 2 generaly different ways. IT runs a little
program that interprets it for the IDE controler and can have different
values with different mother board chipsets. This is why the chkdsk's forced
repair saw the partitioning differently on the new mainboard and is now
showing up as a 30 somethign gig drive instead of the 80 it should be. To be
truth full it should be real easy for a data recovery program to find you
data at this stage because it will ignore the partition and formating being
reported by the drive and attempt to apply it's own algorithm to discover
what apears to be valid data. Also there should be a backup boot sector that
has the partiton and formating information from before the chkdsk made its
changes. If you havn't ran the chkdks too many time it should be able to
pick up on that and find you data with easy. If it isn't there then it is
just a matter of applying different formulas unitl it comes upo with a
likely possablility based on what it knows about file systems.In other
words.. you should get most everythign back but will probably need to
reinstall the programs to use it.

"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
...

After I send this post, I'll physically remove it and put the jumpers
off and then back on to make sure of the contacts. But if Western
Digital's literature is correct, then I have the drive correctly
jumpered as slave - 1&2 connected + 3&4 connected, both jumpers next
to
the power connector.

The size of the drive showed up as reduced after I ran CHKDSK /F.
While
I was running that, BTW, CHKDSK correctly listed the name of the drive
and it's size. Now I can't even get the name.

Since the drive is now listed as healthy in Computer Management, I
believe if I formatted the drive now, it would be usable at the
reduced
size. But that's relatively not important. I want to retrieve the
data.

Here's an MS article on CHKDSK.

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...us/chkdsk.mspx

When I now try to run CHKDSK on the (now labeled "f") drive (using the
/v switch; I think I'm doing it correctly), I get

C:\Documents and Settings\Nehmo Sergheyevchkdsk f:/v
The type of the file system is RAW.
CHKDSK is not available for RAW drives.

--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

Crusty "Old B@stard" wrote:

For your information, chkdsk certainly DOES exist in Win98, if you use F8
and boot to the command prompt.

So, in addition to having a foul mouth, you are also quite stupid!

Also exists in XP and will quite happily check an NTFS disk. But if one is
being obnoxiously pedantic, then one would insist that it's running from a
"command prompt" rather than from "DOS".

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
...

- Harry Ohrn -
Your "new" motherboard might not be so new. It could be limited to the
size
of hard drive it will recognize. A 32GB limitation is not unusual for
some
older boards. What is the brand and model number of your motherboard?

- Nehmo -
Shuttle AN35N Ultra V1.1 .
http://www.shuttle.com/hq/product/ma..._m.asp?M_id=49
It accepts an 80 GB HD.

- Harry Ohrn -
BTW you mentioned that you ran CHKDSK from "DOS". Is the drive
formatted as
FAT32?

- Nehmo -
The CHKDSK switch I used was /f, which fixes errors on the HD. (I gave
the an incorrect switch before.)
http://www.computerhope.com/chkdskh.htm

The drive had NTFS formatting.

Currently, I see the dirve in Computer Management as 31.5 GB Healthy but
unformatted. I have it jumpered as slave.


--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

Are you certain it is jumpered correctly? Some large hard drives have a
capacity limiter jumper setting so they can be used with older boards. I do
not know if that is true for your drive but if the jumper is set incorrectly
that could be one reason why the size is not being properly displayed.

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp

"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
...

- Harry Ohrn -
Your "new" motherboard might not be so new. It could be limited to the
size
of hard drive it will recognize. A 32GB limitation is not unusual for
some
older boards. What is the brand and model number of your motherboard?

- Nehmo -
Shuttle AN35N Ultra V1.1 .
http://www.shuttle.com/hq/product/ma..._m.asp?M_id=49
It accepts an 80 GB HD.

- Harry Ohrn -
BTW you mentioned that you ran CHKDSK from "DOS". Is the drive
formatted as
FAT32?

- Nehmo -
The CHKDSK switch I used was /f, which fixes errors on the HD. (I gave
the an incorrect switch before.)
http://www.computerhope.com/chkdskh.htm

The drive had NTFS formatting.

Currently, I see the dirve in Computer Management as 31.5 GB Healthy but
unformatted. I have it jumpered as slave.


--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

Are you certain it is jumpered correctly? Some large hard drives have a
capacity limiter jumper setting so they can be used with older boards. I do
not know if that is true for your drive but if the jumper is set incorrectly
that could be one reason why the size is not being properly displayed.

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp

"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
...

- Harry Ohrn -
Your "new" motherboard might not be so new. It could be limited to the
size
of hard drive it will recognize. A 32GB limitation is not unusual for
some
older boards. What is the brand and model number of your motherboard?

- Nehmo -
Shuttle AN35N Ultra V1.1 .
http://www.shuttle.com/hq/product/ma..._m.asp?M_id=49
It accepts an 80 GB HD.

- Harry Ohrn -
BTW you mentioned that you ran CHKDSK from "DOS". Is the drive
formatted as
FAT32?

- Nehmo -
The CHKDSK switch I used was /f, which fixes errors on the HD. (I gave
the an incorrect switch before.)
http://www.computerhope.com/chkdskh.htm

The drive had NTFS formatting.

Currently, I see the dirve in Computer Management as 31.5 GB Healthy but
unformatted. I have it jumpered as slave.


--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

Are you certain it is jumpered correctly? Some large hard drives have a
capacity limiter jumper setting so they can be used with older boards. I do
not know if that is true for your drive but if the jumper is set incorrectly
that could be one reason why the size is not being properly displayed.

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp

- Harry Ohrn -
Are you certain it is jumpered correctly? Some large hard drives have
a
capacity limiter jumper setting so they can be used with older boards.
I do
not know if that is true for your drive but if the jumper is set
incorrectly
that could be one reason why the size is not being properly displayed.

- Nehmo -
After I send this post, I'll physically remove it and put the jumpers
off and then back on to make sure of the contacts. But if Western
Digital's literature is correct, then I have the drive correctly
jumpered as slave - 1&2 connected + 3&4 connected, both jumpers next to
the power connector.

The size of the drive showed up as reduced after I ran CHKDSK /F. While
I was running that, BTW, CHKDSK correctly listed the name of the drive
and it's size. Now I can't even get the name.

Since the drive is now listed as healthy in Computer Management, I
believe if I formatted the drive now, it would be usable at the reduced
size. But that's relatively not important. I want to retrieve the data.


--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

- Harry Ohrn -
Are you certain it is jumpered correctly? Some large hard drives have
a
capacity limiter jumper setting so they can be used with older boards.
I do
not know if that is true for your drive but if the jumper is set
incorrectly
that could be one reason why the size is not being properly displayed.

- Nehmo -
After I send this post, I'll physically remove it and put the jumpers
off and then back on to make sure of the contacts. But if Western
Digital's literature is correct, then I have the drive correctly
jumpered as slave - 1&2 connected + 3&4 connected, both jumpers next to
the power connector.

The size of the drive showed up as reduced after I ran CHKDSK /F. While
I was running that, BTW, CHKDSK correctly listed the name of the drive
and it's size. Now I can't even get the name.

Since the drive is now listed as healthy in Computer Management, I
believe if I formatted the drive now, it would be usable at the reduced
size. But that's relatively not important. I want to retrieve the data.


--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

- Harry Ohrn -
Are you certain it is jumpered correctly? Some large hard drives have
a
capacity limiter jumper setting so they can be used with older boards.
I do
not know if that is true for your drive but if the jumper is set
incorrectly
that could be one reason why the size is not being properly displayed.

- Nehmo -
After I send this post, I'll physically remove it and put the jumpers
off and then back on to make sure of the contacts. But if Western
Digital's literature is correct, then I have the drive correctly
jumpered as slave - 1&2 connected + 3&4 connected, both jumpers next to
the power connector.

The size of the drive showed up as reduced after I ran CHKDSK /F. While
I was running that, BTW, CHKDSK correctly listed the name of the drive
and it's size. Now I can't even get the name.

Since the drive is now listed as healthy in Computer Management, I
believe if I formatted the drive now, it would be usable at the reduced
size. But that's relatively not important. I want to retrieve the data.


--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

AND, your results will vary, depending upon how much you've used the drive since you lost
the data. You might only be able to recover portions of files, and not the whole file
itself, or not be able to recover certain files at all. The rule of thumb is to use the
system as little as possible, until you recover what you need. Otherwise, the drive
sectors that contain the files might be overwritten. I once deleted about 200 JPG files.
By the time I recovered them with EasyRecovery, I was only able to fully recover about 80
of the files. The other 120 files were either only partially recoverable, with 1/3 to 1/2
of the image viewable, or not recoverable at all. So, timely recovery is VERY important.
--

T.C.

Remove [NoSpam] to reply


"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
om...
- Nehmo -
EasyRecovery Professional Edition from Ontrack http://www.ontrack.com/
did indeed extract files from my victim HD.

I'm learing how to use the app. I may have been misleading with my
previous description of the results it produced. I'm getting different
and better results now, but they're still not easy to use. It's not
like you can open Explorer and see the everything on the victim HD.

I'll report back later on how successful I've been.

*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.730 / Virus Database: 485 - Release Date: 7/28/2004

AND, your results will vary, depending upon how much you've used the drive since you lost
the data. You might only be able to recover portions of files, and not the whole file
itself, or not be able to recover certain files at all. The rule of thumb is to use the
system as little as possible, until you recover what you need. Otherwise, the drive
sectors that contain the files might be overwritten. I once deleted about 200 JPG files.
By the time I recovered them with EasyRecovery, I was only able to fully recover about 80
of the files. The other 120 files were either only partially recoverable, with 1/3 to 1/2
of the image viewable, or not recoverable at all. So, timely recovery is VERY important.
--

T.C.

Remove [NoSpam] to reply


"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
om...
- Nehmo -
EasyRecovery Professional Edition from Ontrack http://www.ontrack.com/
did indeed extract files from my victim HD.

I'm learing how to use the app. I may have been misleading with my
previous description of the results it produced. I'm getting different
and better results now, but they're still not easy to use. It's not
like you can open Explorer and see the everything on the victim HD.

I'll report back later on how successful I've been.

*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.730 / Virus Database: 485 - Release Date: 7/28/2004