Create emergency repair disks from recovery console?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Is it possible to create the emergency repair disks from the recovery
console?

Because my computer wont boot (windows 2000) and I want to repair the
windows installation. But I don't have any emergency recovery disks, and the
windows installation program says that it need these disks.
I have no access to any other computer with a floppy drive, so I need to
make these emergency repair disks from the falty computer, and the only way
I see it is using the recovery console. But is it possible? If so, what
command to I use?

Regards
/Jimi

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

No it isn't possible. There may be other ways though to recovery.

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Jimi Hullegård" wrote:
| Is it possible to create the emergency repair disks from the recovery
| console?
|
| Because my computer wont boot (windows 2000) and I want to repair the
| windows installation. But I don't have any emergency recovery disks, and
the
| windows installation program says that it need these disks.
| I have no access to any other computer with a floppy drive, so I need to
| make these emergency repair disks from the falty computer, and the only
way
| I see it is using the recovery console. But is it possible? If so, what
| command to I use?
|
| Regards
| /Jimi
|
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

As a supplementary question, Dave, I had always
assumed that the Emergency Recovery Disk had to be
one that was made on the target machine (I assumed
it had information specific to that machine) and
moreover, ought best to be reasonably up to date.

Is that true or are these ERD's in any sense
"generic" ?

Dave Patrick wrote:

> No it isn't possible. There may be other ways though to recovery.
>

>> "Jimi Hullegård" wrote: Is it possible to
>>create the emergency repair disks from the
>>recovery console? Because my computer wont
>>boot (windows 2000) and I want to repair the
>>windows installation. But I don't have any
>>emergency recovery disks, and the windows
>>installation program says that it need these
>>disks. I have no access to any other computer
>>with a floppy drive, so I need to make these
>>emergency repair disks from the falty computer,
>>and the only way I see it is using the
>>recovery console. But is it possible? If so,
>>what command to I use?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Yes on all three accounts.

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"WoofWoof" wrote:
| As a supplementary question, Dave, I had always
| assumed that the Emergency Recovery Disk had to be
| one that was made on the target machine (I assumed
| it had information specific to that machine) and
| moreover, ought best to be reasonably up to date.
|
| Is that true or are these ERD's in any sense
| "generic" ?
=----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Hmm ... slightly confusing to my fuzzy brain,
given my final question.

I assume you mean:

ERD must be made on target machine = yes
ERD must be up to date = yes
"Is that true" = yes

ERD's generic = no

-)

Dave Patrick wrote:

> Yes on all three accounts.

"WoofWoof" wrote:
| As a supplementary question, Dave, I had always
| assumed that the Emergency Recovery Disk had to be
| one that was made on the target machine (I assumed
| it had information specific to that machine) and
| moreover, ought best to be reasonably up to date.
|
| Is that true or are these ERD's in any sense
| "generic" ?
=---

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Correct on all four.

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"WoofWoof" wrote:
| Hmm ... slightly confusing to my fuzzy brain,
| given my final question.
|
| I assume you mean:
|
| ERD must be made on target machine = yes
| ERD must be up to date = yes
| "Is that true" = yes
|
| ERD's generic = no
|
| -)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Jimi Hullegård wrote:
> Is it possible to create the emergency repair disks from the recovery
> console?

If by "recovery console" you mean the screen that offers various repair
options, no. W2K must be running for you to make make emergency
diskettes, and the recovery console is actually running in a (very, very
limited) command-line-only environment (AFAIK, it's a version of DOS.)
The emergency diskettes are a limited snapshot of your W2K system as it
exists when you make the diskettes. As I understand it, the key feature
is the match between W2K and your specific hardware, which W2K creates
automatically during installation.

> Because my computer wont boot (windows 2000) and I want to repair the
> windows installation. But I don't have any emergency recovery disks, and the
> windows installation program says that it need these disks.
> I have no access to any other computer with a floppy drive, so I need to
> make these emergency repair disks from the falty computer, and the only way
> I see it is using the recovery console. But is it possible? If so, what
> command to I use?
>
> Regards
> /Jimi

You can use the CD to repair W2K from the recovery console.

Depending on the type of repair you choose, there is more or less risk
of some data loss, some changes in the installed-application base, and
some changes in the service pack level. IOW, be prepared for some more
or less tedious restoring of the computer to the state you had it in
before it went bad. That's been my experience, anyhow.

When you do get it working as desired, do a system backup, preferably on
a different physical disk (IMO it's worth buying a cheap small HD just
for this purpose.) And make the emergency diskettes. Then get on with
your life.

BTW, even if you could make emergency diskettes from another instllation
of W2K, they would conflict more or less seriously with your
installation, so repair would likely not be possible anyhow.

Down the road, you might want to investigate making a bootable CD that
will restore your W2K system, service packs and all.

HTH&GL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Dave Patrick wrote:
> Correct on all four.

Rotfl!

Thanks, Dave.

BTW, when I read your postings, everything below
your current response (i,e, all the signature and
any quoted parts) come up in a light grey in my
newsreader (Mozilla). Then when I reply none of
the grey text automatically quotes (I have to cut
and paste to get it). The only thing that quotes
is your current response.

Is this something specific that you are doing or
is it something strange at my end (although yours
are the only posts I've noticed it with)? I can't
find anything in my preferences settings that
would account for this.

Although it's a bit of a nuisance to cut and paste
when necessary, this does have the effect of
reducing down on on overquoting actually and is
probably quite a good thing on balance.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

I'm using OE and it may well be something that outlook express does. OE is a
top posting reader which from my perspective is correct. I always trim all
except the text of what I'm replying to. If I had to scroll to the bottom
of each message to read the latest then I would end up being far less
productive as far as learning and answering goes. You can view the internet
headers for some of these messages and see whether we're using a news reader
or CDO and if the former you can also see (among other things) the posting
host.

BTW you don't need newsfeeds.com to view and or participate in these
Microsoft groups. You can point your news reader to news.microsoft.com

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"WoofWoof" wrote:
| Rotfl!
|
| Thanks, Dave.
|
| BTW, when I read your postings, everything below
| your current response (i,e, all the signature and
| any quoted parts) come up in a light grey in my
| newsreader (Mozilla). Then when I reply none of
| the grey text automatically quotes (I have to cut
| and paste to get it). The only thing that quotes
| is your current response.
|
| Is this something specific that you are doing or
| is it something strange at my end (although yours
| are the only posts I've noticed it with)? I can't
| find anything in my preferences settings that
| would account for this.
|
| Although it's a bit of a nuisance to cut and paste
| when necessary, this does have the effect of
| reducing down on on overquoting actually and is
| probably quite a good thing on balance.
|
|
|
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:qABAe.1710$6e3.218812@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Jimi Hullegård wrote:
>> Is it possible to create the emergency repair disks from the recovery
>> console?
>
> If by "recovery console" you mean the screen that offers various repair
> options, no. W2K must be running for you to make make emergency diskettes,
> and the recovery console is actually running in a (very, very limited)
> command-line-only environment (AFAIK, it's a version of DOS.) The
> emergency diskettes are a limited snapshot of your W2K system as it exists
> when you make the diskettes. As I understand it, the key feature is the
> match between W2K and your specific hardware, which W2K creates
> automatically during installation.

OK. I didn't know that.
But then how does boot disks like these work?
http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm
I thought these four W2k disks were the rescue disks?

>> Because my computer wont boot (windows 2000) and I want to repair the
>> windows installation. But I don't have any emergency recovery disks, and
>> the windows installation program says that it need these disks.
>> I have no access to any other computer with a floppy drive, so I need to
>> make these emergency repair disks from the falty computer, and the only
>> way I see it is using the recovery console. But is it possible? If so,
>> what command to I use?
>
> You can use the CD to repair W2K from the recovery console.

Well, I tried that, but it didn't work. I guess because the CD I used when I
installed windows way back wasn't the same CD as I used today.

So I ended up installing windows on top of my current installation.

Thanks for all information, Wolf!

/Jimi

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Setup disks are for use when installing the operating system. You only
needed to use these in the event you could not boot the CD-Rom for one
reason or the other. The ERD is not a bootable disk. The steps to repair
depend on what issue you're having.

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Jimi Hullegård" wrote:
| OK. I didn't know that.
| But then how does boot disks like these work?
| http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm
| I thought these four W2k disks were the rescue disks?
|
|
| Well, I tried that, but it didn't work. I guess because the CD I used when
I
| installed windows way back wasn't the same CD as I used today.
|
| So I ended up installing windows on top of my current installation.
|
| Thanks for all information, Wolf!
|
| /Jimi
|
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Jimi Hullegård wrote:
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:qABAe.1710$6e3.218812@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>Jimi Hullegård wrote:
>>
>>>Is it possible to create the emergency repair disks from the recovery
>>>console?
>>
>>If by "recovery console" you mean the screen that offers various repair
>>options, no. W2K must be running for you to make make emergency diskettes,
>>and the recovery console is actually running in a (very, very limited)
>>command-line-only environment (AFAIK, it's a version of DOS.) The
>>emergency diskettes are a limited snapshot of your W2K system as it exists
>>when you make the diskettes. As I understand it, the key feature is the
>>match between W2K and your specific hardware, which W2K creates
>>automatically during installation.
>
>
> OK. I didn't know that.
> But then how does boot disks like these work?
> http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm
> I thought these four W2k disks were the rescue disks?

They boot a limited version of W2K with the assumption of "generic
hardware", eg, plain EGA instead of VGA or XGA, no network cards or
printer drivers, etc. You use this plain vanilla version of W2K to
invoke the repair process. The emergency diskette you make with your own
system differs from this in a few crucial respects, as I understand it
- but I may be wrong. In any case, it may be worth d/l those bootdisks
and keeping a couple copies on hand.

[...]
>>You can use the CD to repair W2K from the recovery console.
>
>
> Well, I tried that, but it didn't work. I guess because the CD I used when I
> installed windows way back wasn't the same CD as I used today.

Ah, you should always keep the original CD -- or at least copy of it.

> So I ended up installing windows on top of my current installation.

That should work all right, at least you'll get a workable W2K, and can
fiddle with it.

> Thanks for all information, Wolf!

You're welcome.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:35:18 -0400, Wolf Kirchmeir
<wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>Jimi Hullegård wrote:
>> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:qABAe.1710$6e3.218812@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
>>>Jimi Hullegård wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is it possible to create the emergency repair disks from the recovery
>>>>console?
>>>
>>>If by "recovery console" you mean the screen that offers various repair
>>>options, no. W2K must be running for you to make make emergency diskettes,
>>>and the recovery console is actually running in a (very, very limited)
>>>command-line-only environment (AFAIK, it's a version of DOS.) The
>>>emergency diskettes are a limited snapshot of your W2K system as it exists
>>>when you make the diskettes. As I understand it, the key feature is the
>>>match between W2K and your specific hardware, which W2K creates
>>>automatically during installation.
>>
>>
>> OK. I didn't know that.
>> But then how does boot disks like these work?
>> http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm
>> I thought these four W2k disks were the rescue disks?
>
>They boot a limited version of W2K with the assumption of "generic
>hardware", eg, plain EGA instead of VGA or XGA, no network cards or
>printer drivers, etc. You use this plain vanilla version of W2K to
>invoke the repair process. The emergency diskette you make with your own
> system differs from this in a few crucial respects, as I understand it
>- but I may be wrong. In any case, it may be worth d/l those bootdisks
>and keeping a couple copies on hand.
>
>[...]
>>>You can use the CD to repair W2K from the recovery console.
>>
>>
>> Well, I tried that, but it didn't work. I guess because the CD I used when I
>> installed windows way back wasn't the same CD as I used today.
>
>Ah, you should always keep the original CD -- or at least copy of it.
>

I'd try to keep the original CD - AND a copy of it. Anything can get
lost or damaged.

Note that copying files dosn't make a disk bootable. Use the CD-copy
option in your burning software.

>> So I ended up installing windows on top of my current installation.
>
>That should work all right, at least you'll get a workable W2K, and can
>fiddle with it.
>
>> Thanks for all information, Wolf!
>
>You're welcome.

--
"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact
for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose
objections are based not on reasoning but on
doctrinaire adherence to religious principles"
-- James D. Watson

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

I may have mislead you .... It's not a top vs
bottom posting issue (I agree with you about top
posting but lets not start that discussion here
-) ).

What happens is that my reader doesn't quote your
*whole* message just the most recent part. (For
example, the quoted part shown in this message is
all I got of your previous message (qv) when I hit
reply).

I've not seen this behaviour before. With anyone
else's posts, I get everything - all the previous
quotes, warts and all. (Just thinking ...perhaps
the quote character you use has a peculiar effect
on Mozilla. Is it user selectable in OE?)

As for the news server, I run a small local news
server (Hamster) which picks up the same groups
from several external servers including
news.microsoft.com and newsfeeds.com. It has the
advantage that if one server goes down or is
incomplete the messages will be available from
another. Also, for example, the server I had
selected for posting my messages seemed to be
failing to post them this weekend. It's then
trivial to switch posting to another of the
subscribed servers. (Which is actually why my
messages are currently showing the newsfeeds.com
tagline).

(It also has the disadvantage that the local
Hamster server necessarily only serves the actual
groups that you subscribe to. If you reply to a
message that is cross-posted to a group you don't
subscribe to, that reply isn't posted at all).

Dave Patrick wrote:

> I'm using OE and it may well be something that outlook express does. OE is a
> top posting reader which from my perspective is correct. I always trim all
> except the text of what I'm replying to. If I had to scroll to the bottom
> of each message to read the latest then I would end up being far less
> productive as far as learning and answering goes. You can view the internet
> headers for some of these messages and see whether we're using a news reader
> or CDO and if the former you can also see (among other things) the posting
> host.
>
> BTW you don't need newsfeeds.com to view and or participate in these
> Microsoft groups. You can point your news reader to news.microsoft.com
>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

So it's chopping off my signature line. OE by default uses > for quoting I
can also select a colon :

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"WoofWoof" wrote:
>I may have mislead you .... It's not a top vs bottom posting issue (I agree
>with you about top posting but lets not start that discussion here -) ).
>
> What happens is that my reader doesn't quote your *whole* message just the
> most recent part. (For example, the quoted part shown in this message is
> all I got of your previous message (qv) when I hit reply).
>
> I've not seen this behaviour before. With anyone else's posts, I get
> everything - all the previous quotes, warts and all. (Just thinking
> ...perhaps the quote character you use has a peculiar effect on Mozilla.
> Is it user selectable in OE?)
>
> As for the news server, I run a small local news server (Hamster) which
> picks up the same groups from several external servers including
> news.microsoft.com and newsfeeds.com. It has the advantage that if one
> server goes down or is incomplete the messages will be available from
> another. Also, for example, the server I had selected for posting my
> messages seemed to be failing to post them this weekend. It's then trivial
> to switch posting to another of the subscribed servers. (Which is actually
> why my messages are currently showing the newsfeeds.com tagline).
>
> (It also has the disadvantage that the local Hamster server necessarily
> only serves the actual groups that you subscribe to. If you reply to a
> message that is cross-posted to a group you don't subscribe to, that reply
> isn't posted at all).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

So it's chopping off my signature line. OE by default uses > for quoting I
can also select a colon :

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"WoofWoof" wrote:
:I may have mislead you .... It's not a top vs
: bottom posting issue (I agree with you about top
: posting but lets not start that discussion here
: -) ).
:
: What happens is that my reader doesn't quote your
: *whole* message just the most recent part. (For
: example, the quoted part shown in this message is
: all I got of your previous message (qv) when I hit
: reply).
:
: I've not seen this behaviour before. With anyone
: else's posts, I get everything - all the previous
: quotes, warts and all. (Just thinking ...perhaps
: the quote character you use has a peculiar effect
: on Mozilla. Is it user selectable in OE?)
:
: As for the news server, I run a small local news
: server (Hamster) which picks up the same groups
: from several external servers including
: news.microsoft.com and newsfeeds.com. It has the
: advantage that if one server goes down or is
: incomplete the messages will be available from
: another. Also, for example, the server I had
: selected for posting my messages seemed to be
: failing to post them this weekend. It's then
: trivial to switch posting to another of the
: subscribed servers. (Which is actually why my
: messages are currently showing the newsfeeds.com
: tagline).
:
: (It also has the disadvantage that the local
: Hamster server necessarily only serves the actual
: groups that you subscribe to. If you reply to a
: message that is cross-posted to a group you don't
: subscribe to, that reply isn't posted at all).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Dave Patrick <mail@nospam.dspatrick.com> wrote:
> So it's chopping off my signature line. OE by default uses > for quoting I
> can also select a colon :

Some news clients automatically truncate quoted material at the sig
separator (that line containing only "-- " which is intended to separate
the text of the message from the signature. When your reply inserts a
signature anywhere other than at the bottom of the message, replying to
that reply results in the loss of part of the original message, as seem
here.

--
Gary L. Smith gls432@yahoo.com
Columbus, Ohio

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Neither of the two versions that you posted
(different quote characters) solved the problem.

I'm inclined to think Gary's answer is correct.
That it's the "--" separator in the sig line which
is doing this. Certainly, that separator and
everything following is truncated.

Dave Patrick wrote:

> So it's chopping off my signature line. OE by default uses > for quoting I
> can also select a colon :
>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

See my reply to dave. I think you've probably
cracked it here Gary. Interesting.

Gary Smith wrote:

> Dave Patrick <mail@nospam.dspatrick.com> wrote:
>
>>So it's chopping off my signature line. OE by default uses > for quoting I
>>can also select a colon :
>
>
> Some news clients automatically truncate quoted material at the sig
> separator (that line containing only "-- " which is intended to separate
> the text of the message from the signature. When your reply inserts a
> signature anywhere other than at the bottom of the message, replying to
> that reply results in the loss of part of the original message, as seem
> here.
>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Yep probably so. The combination of the -- and your newsreader.

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"WoofWoof" wrote:
| Neither of the two versions that you posted
| (different quote characters) solved the problem.
|
| I'm inclined to think Gary's answer is correct.
| That it's the "--" separator in the sig line which
| is doing this. Certainly, that separator and
| everything following is truncated.