Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help! XP trashed my drive!

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 9:21:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I have an old 120MB drive that I was trying to copy
on to my XP Pro drive. Every 10MB or so, XP would
stop the copy citing an error with one of the files.
To speed things up, I decided to have XP check the drive
and repair it, using the "TOOLS" tab under drive properties.
Well after this, I found NO more files listed on my old drive,
the only thing showing was the "Recycled" icon! However,
Properties showed the size of the drive was pretty close to
what it was before, meaning the data was still on the drive.
(All files are set to "visible" on my system, so thats not the
reason I couldn't see the files). Furthermore, stupid XP renamed
the drive volume to the exact same name as my primary drive.

DOS doesn't show any files on the drive either, and using Norton
Disk Doctor for DOS to repair the drive didn't work.
Running CHKDSK under WinXP shows that most of the drive has data,
but it wants to convert the lost chains to files. I do not want
to allow this, because I don't think CHKDSK has a "unrepair" option.
Norton found over 5,000 lost chains when I ran it, and then said it
couldn't find the drive any longer, after I allowed it to convert
to files (so I undid the repair). Thus I don't want to risk letting
XP trash my data even further!

I don't get what happened exactly, or how I can repair it. All
I know is I've some important docs on this drive I'd like to get
back. Any clue as to how I can fix the XP damage?

More about : trashed drive

Anonymous
January 24, 2005 2:15:30 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Joe Samangitak" <joesamang@address.com> wrote in message
news:5e231d22.0501231821.1cd82a79@posting.google.com...

|I have an old 120MB drive that I was trying to copy
| on to my XP Pro drive. Every 10MB or so, XP would
| stop the copy citing an error with one of the files.
| To speed things up, I decided to have XP check the drive
| and repair it, using the "TOOLS" tab under drive properties.
| Well after this, I found NO more files listed on my old drive,
| the only thing showing was the "Recycled" icon! However,
| Properties showed the size of the drive was pretty close to
| what it was before, meaning the data was still on the drive.
| (All files are set to "visible" on my system, so thats not the
| reason I couldn't see the files). Furthermore, stupid XP renamed
| the drive volume to the exact same name as my primary drive.
|
| DOS doesn't show any files on the drive either, and using Norton
| Disk Doctor for DOS to repair the drive didn't work.
| Running CHKDSK under WinXP shows that most of the drive has data,
| but it wants to convert the lost chains to files. I do not want
| to allow this, because I don't think CHKDSK has a "unrepair" option.
| Norton found over 5,000 lost chains when I ran it, and then said it
| couldn't find the drive any longer, after I allowed it to convert
| to files (so I undid the repair). Thus I don't want to risk letting
| XP trash my data even further!
|
| I don't get what happened exactly, or how I can repair it. All
| I know is I've some important docs on this drive I'd like to get
| back. Any clue as to how I can fix the XP damage?

I wouldn't blame XP for your drive's demise, as it may just be on its death
bed, or have already effectively died. Try the drive on another computer,
although I doubt if the results will be different.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 3:29:04 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Age killed your drive.. it has to be 10 yrs old or more..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"Joe Samangitak" <joesamang@address.com> wrote in message
news:5e231d22.0501231821.1cd82a79@posting.google.com...
>I have an old 120MB drive that I was trying to copy
> on to my XP Pro drive. Every 10MB or so, XP would
> stop the copy citing an error with one of the files.
> To speed things up, I decided to have XP check the drive
> and repair it, using the "TOOLS" tab under drive properties.
> Well after this, I found NO more files listed on my old drive,
> the only thing showing was the "Recycled" icon! However,
> Properties showed the size of the drive was pretty close to
> what it was before, meaning the data was still on the drive.
> (All files are set to "visible" on my system, so thats not the
> reason I couldn't see the files). Furthermore, stupid XP renamed
> the drive volume to the exact same name as my primary drive.
>
> DOS doesn't show any files on the drive either, and using Norton
> Disk Doctor for DOS to repair the drive didn't work.
> Running CHKDSK under WinXP shows that most of the drive has data,
> but it wants to convert the lost chains to files. I do not want
> to allow this, because I don't think CHKDSK has a "unrepair" option.
> Norton found over 5,000 lost chains when I ran it, and then said it
> couldn't find the drive any longer, after I allowed it to convert
> to files (so I undid the repair). Thus I don't want to risk letting
> XP trash my data even further!
>
> I don't get what happened exactly, or how I can repair it. All
> I know is I've some important docs on this drive I'd like to get
> back. Any clue as to how I can fix the XP damage?
Related resources
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 2:20:49 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

BAR@discussions.microsoft.com wrote:

T> When crying out for help, it is not appropriate to issue abuse to
those
T> potentially eager to help.

When those are too dense to read a simple query, and arrogantly state
their clueless opinions and have nothing but childishly useless advice
to a serious problem, yes it is appropriate. They have no business
responding or playing "computer expert", their help is of no value
whatsoever, and is better not given.

T> As for kindergarten: yes there is a place for you to start.

I know you are, but what am I?

T> One usually fnds that solutions are found when proper explanation of
T> problems is provided.

I gave an excellent, above par explanation of the problem. Your
clueless buds decided to ignore 98% of it.

T> You do not suggest what application or tool was used for this
T> 'copy' and indeed why it was important to copy every BIT from the
T> old to the new. Does the old drive have an operating system and
T> applications installed - if yes, then why copy all this unusable
T> baggage across.

Yes I did "suggest what application was used to copy the files". I
even called it by name, "Windows XP". I never said it was "important"
to copy all the files, it's simply the simplest thing to do. Why NOT
copy "all this baggage" as you call it? That right there tells me how
little experience you have, and how little you know what you're
talking about. FAT 16 files copied from a slave drive to a folder on
an XP drive don't activate the WPF system, and it is of no relevance
what type of files they are.


T> Other problems with this are painfully obvious to T> all but a
T>novice PC user.

I've been using PC's since before you were born, son. The only thing
that's painful is your ignorance of all these matters.



T> Did you attempt to do this on a file by file, folder by folder or
drive to
T> drive [as in copying the whole of n-Drive to a folder in C-Drive or
all of
T> n-Drive to C-Drive?


All of D drive to a folder on C drive.

T> One would expect that if you attempted to perform the copy in the
manner of
T> the last process, then you'd have dozens of error messages [or
messages where
T> the system could not complete the specific task for an individual
file ofr
T> folder due to conflicts].

WHAT conflicts?? Why don't you explain in your wondrous elegance what
is inherent in the design of XP that would make it unable to copy
every 10th ZIP file from one drive to another? That should be good for
a laugh.

T> As for renaming the drive etc...that's most peculiar. One would
want to
T> know exactly what messages or promts appeared during this sequence.
Again it
T> would normally appear only due to confilcts with device types etc.

No prompts, just said there were errors with the occasional file. Only
when I placed the supposedly erroneous file in XP's recycle bin, would
XP skip the error and continue the process. But since XP is too stupid
to recover from the smallest error, the entire process of copying the
drive had to be repeated each time it refused to copy a file. There
were no conflicts with "device types", XP had no problem recognizing
my old Samsung upon boot, Device Manager showed it working fine. In
fact, the drive worked fine on its own, away from the clutches of XP.



T> As for the drive conbtents not being visible, perhaps along the way
you've
T> managed to 'delete' them. If so then they are recoverable from the
recyle
T> bin: thus the space allocated to the files has not altered as they
are now a
T> subset of the recyle bin.

Sorry, you're grasping at straws in the dark, and not even CLOSE to
getting a clue. NO, I did not "delete" the files by accident, without
realizing it. You, Curly and Moe have one thing in common, I notice:
your utter REFUSAL to implicate XP as a culprit in the thrashing of my
drive. Until you're ready to do that, you'll never be able to problem
solve a computer problem if your life depended on it.



T> A successful result could be better achieved if one were to use
Partition
T> Magic or Ghost. Now go and read more about these at Symantec's web
site.

There you go again, assuming you know everything. Which is why you
shall always remained cursed with cluelessness. I already have those
two programs and you're the one that needs to read a lot more about
computer systems before you stand on a high chair pretending your
phenomenal ignorance passes for computer knowledge. The only reason you
think
cloning or imaging the drive partition, a far more complicated (read:
error prone) process is a more viable solution, is not because you
"know" it will achieve a more successful result, but because you
clearly have no clue as to what happened in the first place. So
instead of acquiring knowledge about how XP's repair function
interacts with older FAT systems, you figure commercial software is
always be the magic bullet.

You might be a hero to the ladies in the secretarial pool when they
can't figure out how to save a document in Word, but you don't even
figure in the ranks of a rank amateur to me.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 5:59:46 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Joe..

Hear me.. my two computers work flawlessly, and yours doesn't.. so who is
the one without ability here?.. if you don't like XP, don't use it.. load
Linux and take your assumptions to the Linux newsgroups..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





<joesamang@address.com> wrote in message
news:1106724049.298369.15720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> BAR@discussions.microsoft.com wrote:
>
> T> When crying out for help, it is not appropriate to issue abuse to
> those
> T> potentially eager to help.
>
> When those are too dense to read a simple query, and arrogantly state
> their clueless opinions and have nothing but childishly useless advice
> to a serious problem, yes it is appropriate. They have no business
> responding or playing "computer expert", their help is of no value
> whatsoever, and is better not given.
>
> T> As for kindergarten: yes there is a place for you to start.
>
> I know you are, but what am I?
>
> T> One usually fnds that solutions are found when proper explanation of
> T> problems is provided.
>
> I gave an excellent, above par explanation of the problem. Your
> clueless buds decided to ignore 98% of it.
>
> T> You do not suggest what application or tool was used for this
> T> 'copy' and indeed why it was important to copy every BIT from the
> T> old to the new. Does the old drive have an operating system and
> T> applications installed - if yes, then why copy all this unusable
> T> baggage across.
>
> Yes I did "suggest what application was used to copy the files". I
> even called it by name, "Windows XP". I never said it was "important"
> to copy all the files, it's simply the simplest thing to do. Why NOT
> copy "all this baggage" as you call it? That right there tells me how
> little experience you have, and how little you know what you're
> talking about. FAT 16 files copied from a slave drive to a folder on
> an XP drive don't activate the WPF system, and it is of no relevance
> what type of files they are.
>
>
> T> Other problems with this are painfully obvious to T> all but a
> T>novice PC user.
>
> I've been using PC's since before you were born, son. The only thing
> that's painful is your ignorance of all these matters.
>
>
>
> T> Did you attempt to do this on a file by file, folder by folder or
> drive to
> T> drive [as in copying the whole of n-Drive to a folder in C-Drive or
> all of
> T> n-Drive to C-Drive?
>
>
> All of D drive to a folder on C drive.
>
> T> One would expect that if you attempted to perform the copy in the
> manner of
> T> the last process, then you'd have dozens of error messages [or
> messages where
> T> the system could not complete the specific task for an individual
> file ofr
> T> folder due to conflicts].
>
> WHAT conflicts?? Why don't you explain in your wondrous elegance what
> is inherent in the design of XP that would make it unable to copy
> every 10th ZIP file from one drive to another? That should be good for
> a laugh.
>
> T> As for renaming the drive etc...that's most peculiar. One would
> want to
> T> know exactly what messages or promts appeared during this sequence.
> Again it
> T> would normally appear only due to confilcts with device types etc.
>
> No prompts, just said there were errors with the occasional file. Only
> when I placed the supposedly erroneous file in XP's recycle bin, would
> XP skip the error and continue the process. But since XP is too stupid
> to recover from the smallest error, the entire process of copying the
> drive had to be repeated each time it refused to copy a file. There
> were no conflicts with "device types", XP had no problem recognizing
> my old Samsung upon boot, Device Manager showed it working fine. In
> fact, the drive worked fine on its own, away from the clutches of XP.
>
>
>
> T> As for the drive conbtents not being visible, perhaps along the way
> you've
> T> managed to 'delete' them. If so then they are recoverable from the
> recyle
> T> bin: thus the space allocated to the files has not altered as they
> are now a
> T> subset of the recyle bin.
>
> Sorry, you're grasping at straws in the dark, and not even CLOSE to
> getting a clue. NO, I did not "delete" the files by accident, without
> realizing it. You, Curly and Moe have one thing in common, I notice:
> your utter REFUSAL to implicate XP as a culprit in the thrashing of my
> drive. Until you're ready to do that, you'll never be able to problem
> solve a computer problem if your life depended on it.
>
>
>
> T> A successful result could be better achieved if one were to use
> Partition
> T> Magic or Ghost. Now go and read more about these at Symantec's web
> site.
>
> There you go again, assuming you know everything. Which is why you
> shall always remained cursed with cluelessness. I already have those
> two programs and you're the one that needs to read a lot more about
> computer systems before you stand on a high chair pretending your
> phenomenal ignorance passes for computer knowledge. The only reason you
> think
> cloning or imaging the drive partition, a far more complicated (read:
> error prone) process is a more viable solution, is not because you
> "know" it will achieve a more successful result, but because you
> clearly have no clue as to what happened in the first place. So
> instead of acquiring knowledge about how XP's repair function
> interacts with older FAT systems, you figure commercial software is
> always be the magic bullet.
>
> You might be a hero to the ladies in the secretarial pool when they
> can't figure out how to save a document in Word, but you don't even
> figure in the ranks of a rank amateur to me.
>
!