Need Spinrite old version 3.1 or 4.0 - for use on 286/CGA laptop!

  • Thread starter Thread starter crumpton69
  • Start date Start date
C

crumpton69

Hi.
I've tried a borrowed Spinrite 5.0, but it locked up for some
reason... does it need 386+?
I'd like to try a version more in keeping with the age of the laptop,
but capable of handling an IDE-drive - hence 3.1 or 4.0 I think.
Anyone have a copy they no longer need, please?

TIA and regards
- Mark Crumpton
 
Previously said:
Hi.
I've tried a borrowed Spinrite 5.0, but it locked up for some
reason... does it need 386+?
I'd like to try a version more in keeping with the age of the laptop,
but capable of handling an IDE-drive - hence 3.1 or 4.0 I think.
Anyone have a copy they no longer need, please?
Click to expand...

Unles you have a really old disk too (MFM or RLL technology), SpinRite
is snake-oil, i.e. does not work.

Arno
 
So you think it's "statistical analysis" and data recovery are a
crock??
- the idea had always sounded reasonable to me: that results of a
large number of attempted re-reads can be prcessed to give a 'maximum
likelihood' for the original sector data...

Well, does anyone know of other software (besides Spinrite) which
tries to use "statistical" methods to recover disk data??

- Mark.
 
Previously said:
So you think it's "statistical analysis" and data recovery are a
crock??
- the idea had always sounded reasonable to me: that results of a
large number of attempted re-reads can be prcessed to give a 'maximum
likelihood' for the original sector data...
Click to expand...

If this were an MFM/RLL drive with its limited error correction
coding, it would work. But modern disks have longer error correction
codes, which means that if the disk cannot read it, it already is
massively distorded and the statistics do not really work anymore.
Just retries until it works are done by the disk already to a
reasonable amount.
Well, does anyone know of other software (besides Spinrite) which
tries to use "statistical" methods to recover disk data??
Click to expand...

These methods do not really work for modern disks. Sorry.

Arno
 
So you think it's "statistical analysis" and data recovery are a
crock??
- the idea had always sounded reasonable to me: that results of a
large number of attempted re-reads can be prcessed to give a 'maximum
likelihood' for the original sector data...

Well, does anyone know of other software (besides Spinrite) which
tries to use "statistical" methods to recover disk data??
Click to expand...

No. Maybe you can find some software where you get to vote for the most
popular sector read attempt. The attempt with the most votes gets marked
good. Kind of like American Idol but for hard drives!
 
Previously Michael Cecil said:
On 7 Apr 2007 01:02:36 -0700, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
Click to expand...
No. Maybe you can find some software where you get to vote for the most
popular sector read attempt. The attempt with the most votes gets marked
good. Kind of like American Idol but for hard drives!
Click to expand...

Hehe. Cool idea!

Arno
 
So you think
Click to expand...

Babblebot thinks?
it's "statistical analysis" and data recovery are a crock??
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't. Babblebot doesn't think, that makes it's head hurt.
- the idea had always sounded reasonable to me: that results of a
large number of attempted re-reads can be prcessed to give a 'maximum
likelihood' for the original sector data...
Click to expand...

If the drive supports 'Read Long' or that the app is using commands that actually
end up with (bad/uncorrected) data in the read buffer when a read error occurs.
 
No. Maybe you can find some software where you get to vote for the most
popular sector read attempt.
Click to expand...

Guess what it's name is (try Spin something).
The attempt with the most votes gets marked good.
Click to expand...

It can't be 'good' unless it can be read correctly(/corrected) without errors.
The only way to get close is to combine a large number of reads on a bit
by bit 'vote'. The result may differ from any of the individual reads.
If you can do the same for the ECCs (with Read Long commands) you may
actually end up with a working data and ECC combination.
 
Back
Top